Problem: The word "Average"

[Phelyan]

We've had this discussion a long time ago, and we keep having it, so let me answer in Jason's stead:

 

Everyone here is welcome. Nobody here will have to justify their being here, and, yes, personal and sexual insecurities happen at all levels and sizes.

 

Or to put it another way: Nobody here knows how any other person in the world feels about their cocks. But some of us are willing to help and share. It's called empathy.

[kuiltjes]

damn, but we have missed you, phelyan!!!!!!!

 

*kisses

[Phelyan]

Hey, your PM lured me back. Now see what you have unleashed.

[kuiltjes]

*proudly stands up and takes credit

 

*more kisses

[johnlucas]

Bringing back another conclusion I discovered while researching this subject on this site.

 

Without listening to you guys' stories I would have NEVER came up with this idea.

"AVERAGE" is a bad word when trying to determine OBJECTIVE size.

"AVERAGE" is a working computation that moves based on the input data.

 

"MEDIUM" is FIXED & Unbudgeable.

ALWAYS Objective.

NEVER Subjective.

 

MEDIUM will ALWAYS be the Center of Two Points by definition.

No more pouring through endless scientific surveys hoping to meet the cutoff for "Average" as if studying the sports scores on ESPN or the rallies on the stock exchange.

Now you have a stable foundation to determine reality & where you fit in that reality.

 

Give it a read, guys. I think it's one of my best discoveries on this subject.

John Lucas

[Biggie Smalls]

I don't like the idea of being above average penis size and being labelled as small. This doesn't make any sense at all.

 

Also, the size range should not include values up to 15 inches. 15 inches is unbelievably high, even a length of 11 inches questionable. Over at the LPSG forum there's a thread talking about the rarity of 11-inch cocks. So far no one could provide convincing proof of even one 11-inch penis existing. Everything in that size range seems to be either photoshopped, playing with camera angles, hearsay or anecdotal evidence.

[johnlucas]

I don't like the idea of being above average penis size and being labelled as small. This doesn't make any sense at all.

 

Also, the size range should not include values up to 15 inches. 15 inches is unbelievably high, even a length of 11 inches questionable. Over at the LPSG forum there's a thread talking about the rarity of 11-inch cocks. So far no one could provide convincing proof of even one 11-inch penis existing. Everything in that size range seems to be either photoshopped, playing with camera angles, hearsay or anecdotal evidence.

 

In the Small Penis Syndrome forum section of the site MentalSupportCommunity.com, I refined the presentation of this idea to be easier to follow.

 

PROBLEM: The word "Average" & Defining the TRUE Sizes

 

When I wrote this idea here at Measurection for the first time years ago, I was more focused on getting the idea down on paper so I see how it can be a little harder to follow.

 

STILL, my point stands.

I see you made the mistake of using the word "Average" when the proper term should be MEDIUM.

You said "above average".

 

Averages are not SOLID FIXED sizes.

They are a math equation dependent on what data was input to the system.

That's why they always move.

That's why they're always SUBJECTIVE.

 

We cannot talk about size until size is DEFINED.

We cannot talk about size until size is OBJECTIVE.

That's what I was doing with this idea.

 

How in the HELL can sexologists talk about penis size when they don't even know what exactly is SMALL, what exactly is MEDIUM, & what exactly is LARGE

They can't even define what is what yet but want to somehow tell you all about penis size.

 

They have NEVER devised a UNIVERSAL Penis Size Chart to map this out.

No one has even done this basic elementary step!

That's what I found out researching this topic.

 

You have to take it out of human bias & POV because everybody has a different opinion.

You got to get away from the SUBJECTIVE view & look at it from the OBJECTIVE view.

 

And just like last time when I put forth this idea, I run into people too emotionally tied to those size hierarchies.

In FACT I proposed this idea to the guys at the infamous LPSG & they couldn't handle it EITHER.

It was then & there that I discovered that large-sized men are JUST AS irrational & insecure about their penis size as small-sized men are.

What that told me is the only difference is that the large-sized guys get such a healthy dose of praise & celebration that it offsets that insecurity while the small-sized guys don't.

 

A guy with 8 inches thinks he's HUGE & then I drop the knowledge that he's just MEDIUM-LARGE on an OBJECTIVE UNIVERSAL scale & he goes crazy.

It's like the town tough guy thinking he's the baddest shit around & then he runs into a professional fighter which fucks up his sense of self.

 

This chart I made MAKES NO REFERENCE to how many men have the sizes in each category.

That is IRRELEVANT data.

I'm just taking All Possible Sizes & dividing them down the middle categorically to create a chart focusing on FUNCTION.

 

When you say MEDIUM instead of "Average", now you can focus on a CONCRETE FIXED measurement that will allow you to figure out how those dimensions work in the penetration act.

 

All "Average" does is tell you that you're not alone in your size.

It can NEVER tell you how to USE it effectively.

 

And by the way, don't be so sure what does & does not exist.

Check the development of the female breast to understand that human development can go WAY BEYOND human imagination.

It goes WAAAAAY beyond DD-cup.

Most of this kind of stuff you only see in medical journals.

Robert Wadlow was 8 foot 11 inches tall!

Without the picture as evidence we would think this is a myth but it really happened.

 

Jonah Falcon is 13 inches & don't think he's the only one with that size.

Most people who are over-developed like that don't seek publicity because they don't want to be made a spectacle.

 

Many people don't realize that micropenises exist either with 1 or 2 inches.

Not until they see the picture in real time.

Just because the size is super rare DOES NOT mean it doesn't exist.

 

I put 15 down originally just to make it easier to divide without fractions.

People hate fractions & want smooth round numbers.

15 would cover those medical journal "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" situations while also giving me an easily dividable number for the demonstration.

 

But in the end you saw me reduce that to 14 since that divides neatly into 7 categories.

14 inches is only 1 inch above Jonah Falcon so it's really not inconceivable that someone is even bigger than he is. Rare as it may be.

 

Most people won't run into the Jonahs of the world OR the Micros of the world but they DO exist so we must account for their realities.

That's why they're the EXTREMES.

That's why I call those categories Xtra-Small & Xtra-Large.

 

It doesn't matter if the guys at LPSG have seen it or not.

Most people don't even know that site exists!

The Internet's a big place.

When it comes to human development, some things just have to be seen to be believed.

But whether seen or not, those people's existences are REAL.

 

Before we can adequately discuss penis size & more importantly how each size functions in penetration, we have to find out what size is which in the first place.

Can't build a house without a foundation.

 

John Lucas

[Biggie Smalls]

This chart I made MAKES NO REFERENCE to how many men have the sizes in each category.

That is IRRELEVANT data.

I'm just taking All Possible Sizes & dividing them down the middle categorically to create a chart focusing on FUNCTION.

I'd say that it's very relevant to know the amount of men that have certain penis sizes to estimate where oneself fits in. Who cares about a 10"-cock that a potential partner likely never saw in real life anyway?

 

Would you call a house that cost 1 million dollars cheap just because there are houses that are sold for 20 million dollars? I wouldn't.

 

And by the way, don't be so sure what does & does not exist.

Check the development of the female breast to understand that human development can go WAY BEYOND human imagination.

It goes WAAAAAY beyond DD-cup.

Most of this kind of stuff you only see in medical journals.

Robert Wadlow was 8 foot 11 inches tall!

Without the picture as evidence we would think this is a myth but it really happened.

 

Jonah Falcon is 13 inches & don't think he's the only one with that size.

Most people who are over-developed like that don't seek publicity because they don't want to be made a spectacle.

 

Many people don't realize that micropenises exist either with 1 or 2 inches.

Not until they see the picture in real time.

Just because the size is super rare DOES NOT mean it doesn't exist.

There's no independent verification of the size of Jonah Falcon so it might be one of those many exaggerated size claims that should not be taken into account.

Also, I wonder why it's possible to easily find proof for micropenises but not for very large penises of 11 or more inches (special medical conditions excluded). Are the owners of micropenises really more into publicity? That seems very unlikely to me.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Average range is a good term. Doesn't give away the facts, either!

[Biggie Smalls]

Average range is a good term. Doesn't give away the facts, either!

That sounds better than calling the average penis and all those in the average range small.

 

[Red Scott]

Average range is a good term. Doesn't give away the facts' date=' either![/quote']

That sounds better than calling the average penis and all those in the average range small.

 

I definitely agree there!

 

It doesn't matter what you call a range of sizes, they all require a start and end point! I don't see the difference between small, below average, average, above average, large and the suggested small, medium, large extra large etc, etc by the OP as all that's happening is the wording changes and not how a guy judges himself on his size.

 

However you define them there's going to be winners and losers and at the end of the day they all mean the same thing, but some can affect a guy's self esteem more than others.

 

I'd prefer to stick with my category of average than refer to myself as medium, small, mid-small or whatever else!

[Guest]

Descriptions of sizes are always subjective and open to debate. The reference point for these descriptions qualify the application to the subject under scrutiny. A reference point can be anything a fixed or unfixed value and so on. In other words the reference can be realistic or unrealistic or tailored for the ego.

An example, the external catheters worn by astronauts, originally in sizes small, medium and large. The astronaut's ego dictated using the large and leakage became a problem, a simple fix was to resize them as large, gigantic, and humongous. (http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/03/nasa-condom)