Another size statistic

B

bigbutnottoo

0
The new Playboy just arrived. Inside the "Advisor Raw Data" section, there is a pic of a chick inspecting a guys package and it says
" 2 : Percentage of men who have erections larger than 7.2 inches.
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
The new Playboy just arrived. Inside the "Advisor Raw Data" section, there is a pic of a chick inspecting a guys package and it says
" 2 : Percentage of men who have erections larger than 7.2 inches.
Click to expand...

I don't understand?:(
 
Does that mean 2%? I'd think that would be a little lower than it should be.
 
Originally posted by stillwantmore
Does that mean 2%? I'd think that would be a little lower than it should be.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would probably be easier to understand seeing it in the mag. I always thought it was 5% over 7", didnt know about 7.2". seems like a lot of falloff, but still possible. I think there is probably a huge falloff somewhere between 7" and 8"

I think it might be higher than that, especially for BP. But hey, I dont mind. Just as dont mind people thinking average is 5.1 inches, rather than the old 6.3. That just means I'm easily in the top 2% ( both for penis size and IQ, imagine that.)
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
Yes, it would probably be easier to understand seeing it in the mag. I always thought it was 5% over 7", didnt know about 7.2". seems like a lot of falloff, but still possible. I think there is probably a huge falloff somewhere between 7" and 8"

I think it might be higher than that, especially for BP. But hey, I dont mind. Just as dont mind people thinking average is 5.1 inches, rather than the old 6.3. That just means I'm easily in the top 2% ( both for penis size and IQ, imagine that.)
Click to expand...



( the exact stat I used to read in some male sexual health book was that 90% were between 5" and 7", with 5% under 5" and 5% over 7". It also had diagrams for small average, mid-average, and large average, approx. 5.25x4.5, 6.25x5, and 7.25x5.5 respectively. Back then I used to compare mine right against the diagram picture.)
 
I saw that stat in my Playboy too. I don't think they credited the info to a source, so I'm not sure where they came up with that.
 
So... I'd be in the top 2%?

I don't know if I believe it or not. Although my ex girlfriend has said that I was the longest she'd ever been with at 7.125". She has around 10 guys under her belt before me. Maybe there is some truth?
 
Hmm...I don't know that I necessarily buy into only 2% being at or above 7 inches. That statistic sounds far too small to be accurate in my opinion. If it is in fact true, then I can pat myself on the back for being a part of that 2%, but I won't be satisfied until I'm in the top .5%.
 
Originally posted by oopapercutoo
Hmm...I don't know that I necessarily buy into only 2% being at or above 7 inches. That statistic sounds far too small to be accurate in my opinion. If it is in fact true, then I can pat myself on the back for being a part of that 2%, but I won't be satisfied until I'm in the top .5%.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm beginning to believe its more around 10% above 7" and 1% above 8".
 
It did not say 2% above 7". It said 2% above 7.2"
There is likely a significant difference between 7.0" and 7.2"(maybe not a huge difference, but statistically,yes). I think the farther above average you get, the rarer each 0.1" increment of size level is.

I know there was no source. I was thinking maybe it was Kiinsey, but I dont know.
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
It did not say 2% above 7". It said 2% above 7.2"
There is likely a significant difference between 7.0" and 7.2"(maybe not a huge difference, but statistically,yes). I think the farther above average you get, the rarer each 0.1" increment of size level is.
Click to expand...

Exactly true. If you have ever seen a normal distriubtion statistic graph, that's exactly how it works. After about the second standard deivation, the percentages get so low its ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by fallen_one23
yea well when you think of it 2 percent of 6 billion is a lot
Click to expand...

Yeah, but nobody fucks a billion guys. Even if a girl has slept with a random sample of 100 guys only 2 of them would been 7.2 or longer.
 
Originally posted by pumaz
Yeah, but nobody fucks a billion guys. Even if a girl has slept with a random sample of 100 guys only 2 of them would been 7.2 or longer.
Click to expand...
But a girl isn't presented with a random sample. Some guys are more successful than others. Either by confidence or reputation. So big dick guys probably get to see a lot more action. This increases their representation in the sample. I think that's why girls see a lot of big dicks -- it's just that big dicks get around town a lot more. A hundred girls might get a taste of that same one big dick.
 
confidence will alway reign supreme... Thats why salesmen and really good B.S.er's always "talk" themselves into where they want to be. It has nothing to do with the act just the sale.
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
It did not say 2% above 7". It said 2% above 7.2"
There is likely a significant difference between 7.0" and 7.2"(maybe not a huge difference, but statistically,yes). I think the farther above average you get, the rarer each 0.1" increment of size level is.
Click to expand...

I would guess that to be the point around which things would start to taper off, as there aren't that many guys fortunate enough to have monster cocks. Even here at [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words], just from what I've read, there are many of us that do not have 7.2". I talking non-bone pressed, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top