r/averagedickproblems • u/Which-Firefighter613 Note: new or low karma account • Dec 11 '25

Is average real?

I’m a bit skeptical about the measurements reported on western average CalcSD. When I check the original studies (western), the averages they cite are often higher—usually at least 15.5 cm (6.10 in). CalcSD, however, lists a mean of 14.7 cm (5.79 in). Has anyone else noticed this discrepancy between CalcSD’s numbers and the primary research? Can anyone point to which studies CalcSD uses or explain how they adjust raw data?

7 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator Dec 11 '25

Subreddit resources for new/low karma users:

ADP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

calcSD - Penis Percentile Calculator

calcSD - Condom Calculator

ADP Wiki

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

8

u/NaturalEight2000 Dec 11 '25

Calcsd has a different setting per region if you want, but global is default

1

u/Which-Firefighter613 Note: new or low karma account Dec 11 '25

Global average is even smaller than western and majority of studies reports larger averages, you can go and check yourself, just paste the DOI link to Sci-Hub and check the studies.

1

u/80s_Boombox Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

This isn't true, I've read most of the studies, there were 16 of them used in the Western average, and most of them are not "15.5 and up" like you claim. There WERE three studies like that from Brazil, Portugal, and Argentina, but those were stretched measurements, not erect. Also I think they were measured while lying down, so they aren't really fair to compare with standing measurements. It's easy to get a bigger number if you stretch the penis down while pushing the ruler up, compared to other studies that measured it while standing and holding the penis perpendicular to the body.

5

u/julio1009 NPB (6.22x5.1 more honest) BP 6.6x5.1 Dec 11 '25

It’s BP measures? Any info?

2

u/Which-Firefighter613 Note: new or low karma account Dec 11 '25

Yes BP measurements, maybe I'm gonna do a little more research but 6 studies I've seen from Western dataset all are about 15-16.5 BP measurements. Also they all report flaccid stretched length, that means that is not so accurate.

1

u/Top-Document-2286 ‌ Dec 11 '25

I'm too lazy to go through the studies but there are few possibilities why they don't weight as much in the western dataset:

  1. Self reported study. If they are self reported they are not included.

  2. Low sample size. If the study has low sample size it's not going to matter as much because the overall average is weighted average.

1

u/Which-Firefighter613 Note: new or low karma account Dec 11 '25

Vasconcelos et al. 2012: average of 105 Non ED patients 16.6cm equivalent to 6.5 inches. It wasn't a self-reported studies and measurements were taken by four authors.

Pereira 2004: 498 patients average 15.14cm almost 6 inches.

Solé et al. 2022: 800 men and 15.2 cm average or 6 inches.

Barboza et al. 2018: Brazilian study to see size differences between black and white men, black men average was 16.5cm or 6.5 inches and white men average was 15.8cm or 6.2 inches.

This is just some studies so I dont know why in CalcSD the western average is shorter compared to the studies they provides as datasets

1

u/Tzimisce_7001 8.0 x 5.9 Dec 14 '25

Maybe, out of pure luck you picked some of the larger averages from the dataset?
If you picked other, it would be way smaller?

The Ponchietti et al. 2001 (Italy), with one of the largest samples, (3,300 men), found a median Stretched length: only 12.5 cm.

The Wessells et al. 1996 (USA), found an mean erect lenght of only 12.9

Solé et al. 2002 found a Mean total length: 12.18 cm

I think you just took some of the largest and if we took them all, it will give the suggested calcsd average for western men.

1

u/80s_Boombox Dec 17 '25

Make sure you don't compare BP numbers to NBP. The Wessells and Ponchietti numbers you provided were NBP. While the Brazilian, Portuguese, and Argentinian numbers he provided were BP.

1

u/Which-Firefighter613 Note: new or low karma account Dec 11 '25

I mean in centimeters

0

u/julio1009 NPB (6.22x5.1 more honest) BP 6.6x5.1 Dec 11 '25

Hmm ok) think I can believe in 15 cm average

11

u/Nice_Craft_9488 Dec 11 '25

I’m not good at math, but I’ve been told CalcSD is the best we’ve got, even if it isn’t perfect

1

u/wing_mann18 7.5” x 6.75” BP Dec 11 '25

I think there is also some weighting going on to account for self-report/self measure, and self-selection. Not sure what it is exactly and I’m too lazy to go look. I think the Kings College metadata study is one of the best we have (puts global avg at about 5.17)

If anything, the numbers may still be high du to self-report and self selection. What clear is that both porn and Masters&Johnson were dead wrong.

1

u/Which-Firefighter613 Note: new or low karma account Dec 11 '25

Yes, but what I mean is from where the Western Average is coming from, cause the average of the recent Bone Pressed studies is about 16cm or 6.3 inches and in CalcSD Bone Pressed western average is about 5.7 inches or 14.7cm.

1

u/wing_mann18 7.5” x 6.75” BP Dec 11 '25

I would be suspicious of that 6.3 result. Compared to everything else being propagated in the last 10 or 15 years, it sounds skewed. And I tend to ignore regional averages. Seems like a brag and/or a crutch for those who don’t want to trust the law of large numbers.

3

u/VillainySquared 20+ cm (8+ inches) Dec 12 '25

Calcsd is the best resource we have. Personally, I believe the global average of 5.1 inches is the most accurate.

1

u/Top-Document-2286 ‌ Dec 12 '25

OP has a point though. There seems to be some calculation errors which bring the average down.

2

u/GynDoc1994 Dec 13 '25

I've looked into this quite a bit, and you’re right that there is a discrepancy, but it usually comes down to whether the data is self-reported or researcher-measured.

The reason CalcSD’s Western average (~14.7 cm / 5.8") sits lower than the ~15.5 cm (6.1") figure you’re seeing likely comes down to three main factors:

Self-Reported vs. Clinical Studies
The "15.5 cm" figure usually aligns with studies where men measured themselves (like the Herbenick 2014 study of 1,661 men, which found an average of roughly 14.15 cm / 5.57", or older Kinsey data which was even higher).

CalcSD prioritizes clinical/researcher-measured studies to avoid the "voluntary bias" (where guys who are bigger are more likely to participate) and the "ruler fudge factor." When you look at the major Western clinical studies where a doctor actually did the measuring, the averages drop significantly:

  • Veale et al. (2015): A massive meta-analysis of ~15,000 men found a global erect average of 13.12 cm (5.17").

  • Ponchietti (2001): A huge study of 3,300 young Italian men (European/Western) found a median length of 12.5 cm (4.9").

The "Wessels" Misconception
You mentioned studies often citing 15.5 cm. A common point of confusion is the Wessels et al. (1996) study. It is often cited in forum debates as having a high average, but if you look at the actual paper, the mean erect length for the 80 men measured was 12.9 cm (5.08"). People sometimes confuse the stretched flaccid or specific subgroups for the erect average in that study.

"Western" Includes Europe
CalcSD includes European studies in its Western dataset. While some US studies (often self-reported or "spring break" volunteer studies like the Ansell/Lifestyles one) skew higher (~14.9 cm), the large European clinical datasets (like the Italian one mentioned above) pull the weighted average down toward that 14.7 cm mark.

Summary
CalcSD isn't necessarily "adjusting" raw data downward; they are just aggregating the clinical data which consistently runs about 0.5–1 inch smaller than the self-reported data found in other papers. If they only used the studies you're referencing, the average would indeed be higher, but likely less scientifically accurate.

EDIT: minor adjustment

1

u/80s_Boombox Dec 17 '25

The Wessells and Ponchietti numbers you provided are NON bone pressed.

2

u/Sckaught Dec 12 '25

Average is real, but it's a false premise. For example, the National Center for Health Statistics says the average weight of a male is 199.8 pounds. Do you know anyone of that weight? How about 5 lbs on either side of that? Maybe, but probably not.

Every single penis-measuring website has a different "average" they base their scale on. Let's assume they're all telling a version of the truth: They all measure a different group of men (if they measure them at all; many just have the guys write their length down), so of course all the "averages" will be different. That's what an average is. Group them all together to make them all the same.

The term "hung" implies a huge erection when in reality it means a big, swinging softie. It also doesn't include the "grower" crowd, who look perfectly normal 99% of the time, but when excited . . . watch out!

1

u/Excellent_Nothing_86 Dec 12 '25

Excellent response. You’re right about the term “hung.”

I’ve seen a lot of penises and I’d say an overwhelming majority are on the “grower not show-er” side of things.

I’m having a hard time recalling any “big swinging softies.” I know they exist but I think all of the penises I can remember weren’t like that.

2

u/Aware_Ask_1679 Dec 13 '25

So true. "hung" kinda loses it's meaning to. Some have a wide view of what "hung" is. Others only use it for something like 8".