On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:09:16 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote:
OMG---when I first read the abstract I thought the measurements
were in inches. I was stunned. Conclude what you will...
I conclude:
(1) You're not Canadian. ;-)
(2) Most males who made the same reading error are probably
experiencing a severe episode of penile dysmorphic disorder
and can't get the phrase "micro-penis" out of their head.
(3) A couple of males who made the reading error are thinking
"Hey, I'm just average!" ;-)
I won't begin to imagine what female Tipsters thought when
they made the reading error. However, I suppose they might
be asking "where did they get these participants?" ;-)
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote:
A new research study/meta-analysis of, uh, y'know length, indicates
that the "normal" length is likely less than what most think. The
research
was published in the journal -- I kid you not -- BJU International,
a Wiley journal. For those who are curious, see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.13010/full
The results section of the abstract make interesting reading but
probably only if one is fluent in the metric system; quoting:
|Results
|
|Nomograms for flaccid pendulous [n = 10 704, mean (sd) 9.16 (1.57)
cm]
|and stretched length [n = 14 160, mean (sd) 13.24 (1.89) cm], erect
length
|[n = 692, mean (sd) 13.12 (1.66) cm], flaccid circumference [n =
9407,
|mean (sd) 9.31 (0.90) cm], and erect circumference [n = 381, mean
(sd)
|11.66 (1.10) cm] were constructed. Consistent and strongest
significant
|correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height,
|which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6. Limitations: relatively few erect
|measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest
|variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length.
I'm sure that some Tipsters will be able to work in the above into
their
statistics classes. Possibly for the most interesting use of means and
standard deviations. There are a number of correlations reported
between you-know-what and other body parts/variables but they
are not consistent (sorry guys with big feet), but, clearly, more
research
needs to be done.
Of course, such momentous results have caught the eye of the
mass media and interest is rising. See for example, the
UK's Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/03/the-
results-are-in-study-reveals-average-penis-size
or the Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/
health-fitness/health/Are-you-worried-about-your-penis-size-
Read-on/articleshow/46443857.cms
and, for the metrically challenged, HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/average-penis-size-
comprehensive-review_n_6791672.html
Now, if anyone has taught a Sexuality and Behavior course, I think
they
won't be too surprised by these results. However, anyone who gets
their knowledge about other guys junk from porno will probably be
surprised.
Women, of course, know better, as Maria Muldaur has noted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrupRQD44I
-Mike Palij
New York University
P.S. And remember: if it ain't in the hips, it better be in the lips.
;-)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=42458
or send a blank email to
leave-42458-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
