Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And yet there are studies that say otherwise. Not to mention the general idea of dick measuring studies is potentially flawed in so many ways.And if you'd like a bit of facts with your fantasies:
https://www.healthline.com/health/is-penis-size-genetic#quick-answer
(Spoiler: "Race has no bearing on penis size")
Definitely heights and size correlation is not 100%. I know a couple shorter guys supposedly sporting 10 inches or so as well. Although the few guys I know 6 foot 6 plus, allegedly all have monsters.And then there is Ronald Hyatt. A 5'6" Jewish guy from New York. He has a 10" cock. Oh, he performs under his first and middle names. Ron Jeremy.
I have posted in essays and reviews the AI summaries on the question of population differences in penis size. Yes there is evidence that there are differences. Contrary to orthodoxy, really a dogma about stereotypes, assume that they are true because it is in interest of the observer to have true beliefs about the world. It is a disadvantage for survival to have false belief about the world.Gay men have you noticed in the course of your life handling penises that one ancestral population, race, of men have on average larger penises than other races?
There is actual empirical data to support to the hypothesis that ancestral populations, racial groups, do have average differences in penis size. The article that you link to is dogma masquerading as a consensus hypothesis. There are good reasons to believe that stereotypes are based on observable reality.And if you'd like a bit of facts with your fantasies:
https://www.healthline.com/health/is-penis-size-genetic#quick-answer
(Spoiler: "Race has no bearing on penis size")
I’m 5’7. Fit. Small hands and feet. Despite internet BS, there aren’t THAT many 8+ cocks around. Despite being small of stature, my 7.5x6c cock has been judged large—sometimes largest!—by nearly every person, male or female, I’ve been with. Height isn’t the tell. Also, men should stop pretending that 6” is “small”—in fact, well above averageAnd yet there are studies that say otherwise. Not to mention the general idea of dick measuring studies is potentially flawed in so many ways.
I've read there is a general correlation to height and penis size, so if a race is taller than another race, then generally the penis size will correlate as well. It's just simple logic.
I know my partner used to date only very tall black guys, and she's seen more very big dicks than should be statistically possible. My guess is the height thing was more the reason than the race thing.
I'll take the word of a guy that has seen many penises of many different races over some study funded by who knows who to come to who knows what conclusions.
Can you provide a link to that data please? I'd love to read it.There is actual empirical data to support to the hypothesis that ancestral populations, racial groups, do have average differences in penis size.
Me too.Can you provide a link to that data please? I'd love to read it.
https://www.worlddata.info/average-penissize.phpCan you provide a link to that data please? I'd love to read it.
Thanks.https://www.worlddata.info/average-penissize.php
Like any supposed study I question the data and how it's retrieved.
And this one actually concludes that penis size is not significantly linked to race..
For a planet of 4 billion males, 1600 people is super small data field.And this one actually concludes that penis size is not significantly linked to race..
From the link:
Despite common beliefs, race has only a marginal impact upon penis size. A 2014 study of more than 1,600 males determined that the difference in average penis size among White, Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander/Hawaiian men in the US varied by less than an inch. While slight regional trends can be seen when comparing one country’s data to another, the differences are generally considered mild overall
There really isn't a need for a larger sample size than that:For a planet of 4 billion males, 1600 people is super small data field.
Plus even that interpretation- if the average length is 5.5ish That's still almost a 20% variance. In this age of not wanting to offend anyone I get why they say that.
That's like saying there's no difference between an A and C on an exam.
I think it's likely the taller races or geographical areas are likely slightly larger.
Of course you know that no matter how unscientific their surveys are or how many flaws you point out in the methodologies, they are NEVER going to back down from their assertions. They are like members of the flat earth society.There really isn't a need for a larger sample size than that:
https://tools4dev.org/resources/how...you plan to,useful, idea about their opinions.
Main point:
A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.
Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.
I never expect to change the opinion of anyone online - that's almost impossible. I just post to provide a bit of a counterpoint and to give more neutral readers a chance to see some facts instead of only being presented with skewed anecdotesOf course you know that no matter how unscientific their surveys are or how many flaws you point out in the methodologies, they are NEVER going to back down from their assertions. They are like members of the flat earth society.