Race and Genital Size

[Weirddave]

Collounsbury,
LMAO! By George I think he’s got it!

[system]

Actually rereading what I’ve written on the two samples, I’ve rather botched what I meant about the size of the s.e.s for the two samples and the issue of uncertainty. However, I have to go out the door now so I can’t correct myself properly.

LucwarmL search race and genetics. And set the date back more than a week or two. Try a year. Even with race and penis you should get a vomit load of threads on the issue.

As far as Cecil’s columns on race, like I said already, Cecil has yet to write a good column on the issue at all. Relying on bad, outdated data and poorly conceived anthro from the 1950s rarely gets one far.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Race and penis size? Give me a fucking break. Everybody knows it’s shoe size that determines the length of one’s penis.
Woody, size 11

[Biggirl]

And is it me, or are most scientific studies on genitalia a bunch of guys staring at their dicks? Oh sure there are a tiny section guys staring at clitorises (clitorisi? clitorisis?), but Holy Smokes do men just loooove measuring the stick of destiny.
Now, where are the studies that show genitalia is or is not correlated with body size?

[Venoma]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**the stick of destiny.
**

BAND NAME!

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
I could give a fuck what “Cecil” says as his columns on race have been either dead wrong or poorly informed, and inexcusabely so given their writing dates.

That’s fine. Frankly I’m not all that concerned with what you say. To each his own. But I do find it strange, given the forum, that a moderator would close a thread based on a declaration that directly contradicts a Cecil column.

Here, on the other hand, if one knows stats, it seems to me “Cecil” is acknowledging the variation issue. Rather like a poll where Politician A is head of B by 1% and the s.e. of the poll is 3%. When one is within the standard deviation, there is no difference.

This is erroneous, if one knows stats. It does not mean that there no difference - it means that the conclusiveness of this difference is in question. (I actually had a thread about this in GD during election season, but can’t be bothered to look it up now). I would think the words “tend to bear this out” would mean, well, “tend to bear this out”. Good enough for me, anyway.

We find a tiny difference well-within the likely s.e. of the samples.

This is the opposite of what you said earlier (in your response to lucwarm)

No it isn’t, what the fuck you talking about?

I refer to your earlier statement that

In re the sample sizes, both are above 30 and so we can guess they are likely to have statistical signif.

(Abstracting away from the clear problems of comparision between the samples and the issues of selection bias)

Pure speculation. Fine as opinion, but not to be confused with fact.

Perhaps Izzy you should reread and try to understand the discussion better. There is no aspect of opinion in the issues of comparision between the two samples, it is a statistical issue. Not that there are not ways to possibly deal with this, but putting up two samples of different sizes without understanding the s.e.s and issues of selection bias is a problem. Straight-up science there, no opinion. Fact.

It is indeed true that sample size affects significance. No big revelations there. However, your suggestion that the camparison of the samples would tend to lower the significance is speculation.

As for selection bias, that is also fact: selectin bias is a problem. It is speculation as to what the impact of the problem may be, that is true.

It is also true that the very presence of selection bias in this instance is speculation.

Taking that in the context of our present genetic data which clearly shows the classic races have no biological coherency, we can discount this on its face.

This would be more meaningful if these matters were fully understood, which as you seem to agree, they are not.

Which matters? Sex organ size? Sexual practices? Inter-group differences?

What might cause different goups to differ with regards to sex organ size.

One can exclude certain things, becuase the genetic data do not allow for it. Racial phyiscal differences being one of them. The data are not clear on smaller groupings. That is where one can not make clear statements. You will not I am very careful on this and quite clear above. There are things which have been excluded, others which have not.

I don’t wish to rehash this again - we’ve been through this before. I think my comments above can stand on their own.

[Larry_Mudd]

And we were having such fun before y’all started treating this as if there were actually a real debate in it.

Does Cecil believe Kinsey’s results? I don’t think so. I think that “These figures should be regarded with caution” is a delicious understatement, and should be read as “These figures are a load of bollocks.” But that could be just because I need preserve my respect for Cecil.

How esteemed is Dr. Kinsey in the scientific community? Well, Cosmopolitan still cites him as a credible source, but he took 3[sup]rd[/sup] place in the Statistical Assessment Service’s “Worst Science of the Century” awards, for sloppy sampling.

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by Reeder *
**So racial genital sizes do matter to you? **

No, but I might be interested to learn if there were differences based on race, if they exist. Or, I might not. In which case, I would ignore the thread like I would every other thread that doesn’t interest me.

Take a look around the board. Most every question “doesn’t matter”. Most are idle curiosity. And it’s my humble opinion that opening a thread that I don’t care about and making a “who the fuck cares” reply is the height of both rudeness and stupidity. This being the pit might excuse the rudeness, but I will never understand the stupidity of a person who opens a thread they don’t care about (where the subject was clearly described on the subject line), and actually goes through the trouble of making a reply to inform the world that they don’t care.

[Larry_Mudd]

Revtim, I think it’s worth noting that Reeder wasn’t responding to the OP, but to Palve’s post:

More important is who has the shortest member. I heard it was the Asians but I can’t seem to remember from where I heard that…

Although Palve’s post was probably intended as a tongue-in-cheek sorta thing, I think in that context Reeder’s comment wasn’t that far out of line.

[Jester]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
Of course in that order. I’ve got my husband’s penis right here and I really like my clitoris. **

Wouldn’t it be more useful if it was actually attatched to your husband, instead of sitting on the desk next to your computer?

<Runs like Hell away from the Stick of Destiny>

[system]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
I could give a fuck what “Cecil” says as his columns on race have been either dead wrong or poorly informed, and inexcusabely so given their writing dates.

That’s fine. Frankly I’m not all that concerned with what you say. To each his own. But I do find it strange, given the forum, that a moderator would close a thread based on a declaration that directly contradicts a Cecil column.

Well, as several folks have pointed out, her declaration ** doesn’t ** directly contradict Cecil’s brief recounting of Kinsey’s “data” and even if it did, the preponderance of the evidence on genetics makes the case Cecil’s comment is irrelevant. Ignorance in the service of idolatry is hardly any better than plain vanilla ignorance.

Here, on the other hand, if one knows stats, it seems to me “Cecil” is acknowledging the variation issue. Rather like a poll where Politician A is head of B by 1% and the s.e. of the poll is 3%. When one is within the standard deviation, there is no difference.

This is erroneous, if one knows stats. It does not mean that there no difference - it means that the conclusiveness of this difference is in question. (I actually had a thread about this in GD during election season, but can’t be bothered to look it up now). I would think the words “tend to bear this out” would mean, well, “tend to bear this out”. Good enough for me, anyway.

To be more precise, we don’t and can’t know that the actual values are different. The range of error covers the difference. As such, for practical purposes, there is no difference reflectable in that poll. That does not mean there is no real difference, of course. That is obvious. But in terms of your sample, you can’t know.

Bullshit is bullshit. You can cherry pick as you like.

We find a tiny difference well-within the likely s.e. of the samples.

This is the opposite of what you said earlier (in your response to lucwarm)

No it isn’t, what the fuck you talking about?

I refer to your earlier statement that

In re the sample sizes, both are above 30 and so we can guess they are likely to have statistical signif.

Yes, both sample sizes are above 30, as such, all things they are likely to have some statistical significance. That does not remove other problems.

This is getting far too tedious.

What might cause different goups to differ with regards to sex organ size.

I already suggested some, in regards to unerect penis size. That is an emperical question. Other factors might be pure chance variation. Frankly it is hard to imagine anything producing large coherent variation in member size in any particular ethnic group.

[Biggirl]

*Originally posted by Jester *
**

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
Of course in that order. I’ve got my husband’s penis right here and I really like my clitoris. **

Wouldn’t it be more useful if it was actually attatched to your husband, instead of sitting on the desk next to your computer?

<Runs like Hell away from the Stick of Destiny> **

That’ll learn him to interrupt me while I’m posting.

Seriously, isn’t everyone’s computer next to the bed?

And just to keep this post on subject: It’s a whopper, I guess there is some truth to the stereotype!

[Lizard]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
I strongly suspect that genitalia size corrolates with body size and race is quite irrelevant. **

If only that were true. Then I would have a HUGE cock.
I, for one, will go to my grave believing black guys have bigger dicks than me, at least. I played on a college football team with about 15 black guys. To a man, they were all hung like horses. Once I thought about it, I realized this might be the reason why some of the black girls I was interested in didn’t return my affections: my tiny white penis.

[system]

Bloody inadequacy issues.

*Originally posted by Lizard *
**

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
I strongly suspect that genitalia size corrolates with body size and race is quite irrelevant. **

If only that were true. Then I would have a HUGE cock.

Obviously not everyone gets lucky. Or maybe my size 11 feet are onto something.

Or maybe
[qoute]
I, for one, will go to my grave believing black guys have bigger dicks than me, at least. I played on a college football team with about 15 black guys. To a man, they were all hung like horses.

[/quote]

some folks didn’t catch the whole hanging versus erect length discussion or perhaps there a bit of small penis holder envy going on. Average correlation to body size being no guarantee for any given individual.

Once I thought about it, I realized this might be the reason why some of the black girls I was interested in didn’t return my affections: my tiny white penis.

Give me a fucking break. Dorkishness, your capacity to finesse underlying racial tensions/issues and personal appeal are the likely explanatory factors. This white boy never had problems or complaints. Your problems are, well to be brutal, your motherfucking problems. Penis envy in re lockerroom obs are just excuses for other things.

[capacitor]

Whoa, Collunsbury, stop, cool down, klaatu barada nikto. Don’t blow up the world, or yourself, over someone who doesn’t feel well-endowed.

That being said, I learned from experience that women like beanstalks over stiffening rods, if you know what I mean. So a large flaccid size may be a detriment.

[nani]

What about the Latinos?! No one ever mentions the Latinos in any debate concerning the penis! Envy, Perhaps?

[edwino]

*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
edwino, in your household, will the stockings be hanged by the chimney with care this holiday season? Clement Clarke Moore would not approve. (Or Henry Livingston, either.) **

Hung is the correct past tense in all cases except being hanged from the neck until death. So stockings would be hung if I weren’t so fucking Jewish, and war criminals are hanged. And believe me, I am hung.

Hey, I thought there was a nonverbal pact not to do the whole race and genetics thing again round this board. I hadn’t seen it for a while, and had been thankful cause Coll was away. I understand his frustration in times like this and I will not bar him from venting it in this, the appropriate forum.

Just to clarify for everyone, here is a little psalm:
“mizmor l’david:
Genetics is a science
In genetics, we have precise criteria of how to separate two groups of people
The definition of race does not approach these criteria
There are no significant genetic differences between two arbitrary races
The concept of race has been outmoded for the better part of two centuries
Genetics has driven the nail in this coffin
Attempting to mangle genetics to fit the concept of race is always pseudoscience
All perceived differences in races must either be artifact or environmental
Amen.”

This is a case of terrible oversimplification but I don’t feel like expounding. I could get started but I’m sure someone will post a link to one of the hundreds of old threads on this matter.

[Larry_Mudd]

Bravo, edwino!

[Infectious_Lass]

*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
**How,"]from a derrick? **

Great…Appalling animal cruelty, that’s really good for a laugh.
I’m going to have trouble sleeping tonight now I hate being reminded that I belong to a species capable of such evil against a beautiful creature.

I’m not kidding, I feel like crying now. I hope the bastards who did that to that poor elephant are burning in hell now.

Bastards.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**

*Originally posted by IzzyR *

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
I could give a fuck what “Cecil” says as his columns on race have been either dead wrong or poorly informed, and inexcusabely so given their writing dates.

That’s fine. Frankly I’m not all that concerned with what you say. To each his own. But I do find it strange, given the forum, that a moderator would close a thread based on a declaration that directly contradicts a Cecil column.

Well, as several folks have pointed out, her declaration ** doesn’t ** directly contradict Cecil’s brief recounting of Kinsey’s “data” and even if it did, the preponderance of the evidence on genetics makes the case Cecil’s comment is irrelevant. Ignorance in the service of idolatry is hardly any better than plain vanilla ignorance.**

Well, as I’ve pointed out, it does directly contradict Cecil. Are you saying that another poster agreed with you? Great, but you can do better. And I don’t think Cecil should be irrelevant, in this forum. In fact, I don’t think any reputable source could ever be considered irrelevant, in terms of shutting off discussions in this forum. I can understand that you are personally frustrated by having to rehash the same discussions again and again. But such is life.

Here, on the other hand, if one knows stats, it seems to me “Cecil” is acknowledging the variation issue. Rather like a poll where Politician A is head of B by 1% and the s.e. of the poll is 3%. When one is within the standard deviation, there is no difference.

This is erroneous, if one knows stats. It does not mean that there no difference - it means that the conclusiveness of this difference is in question. (I actually had a thread about this in GD during election season, but can’t be bothered to look it up now). I would think the words “tend to bear this out” would mean, well, “tend to bear this out”. Good enough for me, anyway.

To be more precise, we don’t and can’t know that the actual values are different. The range of error covers the difference. As such, for practical purposes, there is no difference reflectable in that poll. That does not mean there is no real difference, of course. That is obvious. But in terms of your sample, you can’t know.

Which is what I said, thank you. But it can suggest a difference, even if inconclusively.

We find a tiny difference well-within the likely s.e. of the samples.

This is the opposite of what you said earlier (in your response to lucwarm)

No it isn’t, what the fuck you talking about?

I refer to your earlier statement that

In re the sample sizes, both are above 30 and so we can guess they are likely to have statistical signif.

Yes, both sample sizes are above 30, as such, all things they are likely to have some statistical significance. That does not remove other problems.

This seems like an oddly worded retraction, but I’ll take it, such as it is. I’ve already noted that your “other problems” were speculative.

What might cause different goups to differ with regards to sex organ size.

I already suggested some, in regards to unerect penis size. That is an emperical question. Other factors might be pure chance variation. Frankly it is hard to imagine anything producing large coherent variation in member size in any particular ethnic group.

Certainly hard for me to imagine. But unless the issue is fully understood, the fact that it is “hard to imagine” what might produce such variation cannot weigh too heavily. This was my earlier point.