FrankTalk.org

OK gang, for years now I have read conflicting reports regarding the correlation between the size of a mans hands, feet and penis. The most common I have seen is that there is no evidence that suggests that, if you have big hands you have a big penis BUT it further says that if you have big feet, you do have a big penis. So, it would be nice if everyone were to post here, the proper size of your penis and the size of your shoes and gloves. Of course if people were to lay down, lay a shoe on one leg beside their penis and a glove on the other leg and take a picture of the three, that would be great... if you do that, please posts the sizes as well. This could be educational and fun. I will go first

Shoe - 11.5
Dick - 5.5
Glove - large.

Don't forget that, according to ultrasound, I have between 7 and 9 cm of penis trapped in my pelvis due to 3 botched circumcisions.

Larry

I have rather quite large hand and rather very small penis, so... yeah, it's all urban legends

Hunchback wrote:I have rather quite large hand and rather very small penis, so... yeah, it's all urban legends

No... the most credible, scientific study says that feet and penis are related.

Larry

Larry10625 wrote:

Hunchback wrote:I have rather quite large hand and rather very small penis, so... yeah, it's all urban legends

No... the most credible, scientific study says that feet and penis are related.

Larry

Care to share the citation?

It does make sense that general humanoid proportionality would demand that large body parts on one part of a man's body suggest all parts be larger. But for that general proportionality to be useful as a predictor is a tremendous leap. To what end? Bar bets, perhaps?

I don't intend to be argumentative. Only a bit teasing.

Lost Sheep wrote:

Larry10625 wrote:

Hunchback wrote:I have rather quite large hand and rather very small penis, so... yeah, it's all urban legends

No... the most credible, scientific study says that feet and penis are related.

Larry

Care to share the citation?

It does make sense that general humanoid proportionality would demand that large body parts on one part of a man's body suggest all parts be larger. But for that general proportionality to be useful as a predictor is a tremendous leap. To what end? Bar bets, perhaps?

I don't intend to be argumentative. Only a bit teasing.

That's good sheep cause it was a long time ago that I saw it... I'll try to find it.

Larry

Size 9 shoes and size large gloves. Penis was 4.5” (5.5” bone pressed). We should use bone pressed measurements to eliminate the various fat pad depths. Also, most reliable studies use bone pressed.

A 2002 study in the British Journal of Urology put it to rest when two urologists measured “the stretched penile length” of 104 men, ages 17 to 85, with shoe sizes 5½ to 13, and found no association between foot and penis size. ... It's not true, either, that hand or nose size correlates with penis size.Jul 26, 2016

I’m 5’8” tall. Small glove size. Size 8.5(North American) shoe size. When I was 30, 8” dick.

Lost Sheep wrote:It does make sense that general humanoid proportionality would demand that large body parts on one part of a man's body suggest all parts be larger.

I played football with a Defensive Tackle who was 6’3” tall and weighed 260lbs. His nickname was “Tiny”. And he was.

Is this flacid or erect?

Woodicould wrote:Is this flacid or erect?

I don’t know who you’re asking.

For Tiny, I only saw his flaccid. It was the girls who nicknamed him.

For me, erect as a 30yr. old.