Is a large penis based on heredity or really associated with shoe size?
954616
Statistically speaking, the average male has an erect penis that measures just under 6 inches in length. The asian average is a mere one-tenth of an inch less than white men and black men are one-tenth of an inch longer the white guys. Now, if you are designing an airplane maybe a tenth of an inch is significant, but when it comes to sex, length really doesn't matter and a tenth of an inch certainly won't.\n\nPenis length has no relationship to shoe or hand or nose or any other body part size. I've observed guys with size 2 feet who have 6 inches and guys with size 7 feet who measure 7 inches or more. And some of the biggest noses I've seen are accompanied by average penises at best. And even though there may be a case for genetics, some men have sons with way bigger penises and vice versa so who knows on that one either though maybe further research will prove it is inherited from your mother's father or something.  \nIn any event, just write off your size to a decision made by mother nature and learn to use your penis really well so you and your partner enjoy every minute you spend with it.
896662
There is no safe way to increase the size of your penis.  Size is determined by your own genetics.  What are you worried about?  It's not how big you are that's important, it's what you do with what you've got that's the important thing.
902944
England....they predate the metric system, for example a "foot" is roughly the length of an adult male's foot.\nNot sure why we don't use the metric system.  There was a big push to switch when I was in elementary school, but it never happened.
492057
You probably have a good sense of where you fit in the distribution of size for \nmore commonly visible measurements of body size: height, size of hands, feet, \nweight and so on. However, unless you spend a lot of time in a nudist \nenvironment, there are, understandably other measurements for which you don’t \nhave a good sense of where you fit. Penis size is an obvious example. It’s also \none that can make a lot of people uncomfortable. They worry about whether they \nare abnormal, “too small,” “too large,” and so on. As with most characteristics \nof human anatomy, there is a lot of individual variation. You can differ \nsubstantially from average without being unusual or freakish and without any \nneed for concern or medical intervention. If you have concerns, by all means \nconsult a doctor, but chances are good that you have nothing to worry about.\n\nOn the other hand, there is always a fascination with people who are \nsignificantly different for the normal range. This applies to height and \nweight, size of hands and feet, and, yes, also to penis size. So what \nis “normal”? Surprisingly, perhaps, given how common concerns about penis size \nseem to be, there are very little good data based on large samples. There are \ndata, though, and the numbers seem to agree well enough to suggest that the \nsample size must be large enough to give reasonably accurate measures of \naverages and distributions. A good summary of recent data can be found at \nAverage-Penis.com:\n\nhttp://www.average-penis.com/\n\nThere are additional links there to other studies as well.\n\nThe average length of an erect penis (measured along the top) is 16.1 cm (6.34 \nin).\n90% of measurements fall between 10 and 21 cm (4 and 8.25 in).\nThe average girth of an erect penis is 12.3 cm (4.84 in).\nThe average length of the flaccid penis is about 9 cm (3.5 in) with most \nmeasurements falling between 5 cm (2 in) and 12.5 cm  (5 in).\n\nThese numbers appear to be approximately independent of such parameters as age \n(post-puberty) and nationality despite any anecdotal information you may have \nheard to the contrary, though reliable data on such variations is quite limited.\n\nYou can decide what “big” is, but just as you probably wouldn’t particularly \nlabel someone as “tall” unless they were in the top few percent, you probably \nwouldn’t want to label someone’s penis as “big” unless it was larger than the \nnormal ranges quoted above (greater than 21 cm erect length, 12.5 cm flaccid \nlength). There also appears to be a large variability in the ratio of the erect \nlength to flaccid length. Average is about 1.8, but ratios from about 1 to 4 \nare not uncommon.\n\nYou can turn up a lot of additional reading material on this subject with a \nGoogle search on:\n\nAverage penis size\n\nAnd if you are concerned about appearance, you might also want to look at the \nPenis size page,\n\nhttp://www.penis-size-page.com\n\nThis site has many pictures of both average and more unusual penises that you \ncan compare to your own.\n\nI hope this information helps you to better understand what is “normal” \nand “big.” Again, if you have concerns, consult your doctor. You may also see \nmany advertisements for companies that claim to help you increase penis size. I \nwould caution you against considering their services because of questionable \nefficacy in many cases, and because it is unlikely that there is any real \nreason why you should need to change your size.
1069534
hey, I'm a a size 8UK. anyway, what does shoe size has anything to do with this question? the last time i checked, a lesbian's "size" wasn't checked via the shoe size anyway. or have i miss something again?!?!?\n\ngirl! you gotta keep your itchy fingers in your pants man! or else your GF would have your head for dinner!\nand to answer your question, my answer would be no cuz otherwise MY GF would have MY head for dinner! lol\n\ngood luck in your quest kiddo
931949
Wow! What the heck? Can't I just give you my name, rank and serial number?\n\nAge=35\nMom=blonde/blue\nDad=brown/blue\nMe= brown/blue\nMy shoe size (U.S.)=7\nMy hand span= 7 in. (thumb to pinky)\nMy weight = 130
737267
beating the meat does not cause reduction in the size of the penis.  other factors can cause this trick of nature, but not soloing.  reduction in testosterone levels, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc, can all impact the size of one's endowment. \nif it is bothersome to you, see a urologist or an endocronologist to explore the possible causes.
865163
Neither.  Size is a function of genetics, not of how much food a man consumes.
125133
Genetic predisposition among other things.
1083035
Yes, it's European. Here's an interesting international shoe size comparison chart.\n\nhttp://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html#adult
517248
try this\nhttp://www.male-xpressions.com/sizegenetics.php
436684
Penis shaped. thanks for the points.
361020
The thing about the shoe size is nt always true because my last bf wore a size 17 and my baby cousin has more than him. Talk about not being satisfied!
19468
I wish I could say I read Phillips answer, but I couldn't maintain focus. So, risking repeating elements of his analysis, I'm going to give this question a stab, but with a biological/evoluationary bent.\n\nEvolutionary arguments have been offered for male homosexuality. For example, Symons (1979) argues that homosexuality results from a meme that takes advantage of the inborn male propensity to find sexual variety interesting. Normally this propensity would be adaptive because it would encourage males to attempt sexual relations with many women, which would result in more offspring. But a meme could parasitize this propensity, redirecting sexual interest to non-adaptive objects, as in fetishism or homosexuality. \n\nEpigenetic arguments have been inspired by work on pre-natal hormones. Dîrner and his colleagues (cited in LeVay 1994) link stress during pregnancy to hormonal effects on the fetus that would lead to homosexuality. This could be part of a mother's adaptive reproductive strategy. That is, in times of stress, when it is difficult to raise children, it may be adaptive to have some homosexual children who could help their siblings raise offspring instead of having offspring of their own.\n\nMemic and epigenetic arguments may explain some aspects of homosexuality, such as the cultural variations in practices or identities, or specific behaviors of homosexuals (femininity for example). However, the biological studies of homosexuality, together with the extraordinary cross-cultural similarities of exclusive homosexuals (Whitam 1983) suggest that some aspects of homosexuality (e.g. orientation) are at least partly determined by genes.\n\nThe basic problem for genetic explanations of homosexuality is to account for how a gene that does not lead to offspring could survive the pressures of natural selection. One possibility is that a maladaptive gene for homosexuality might re-occur repeatedly in a population if it results from the frequent mutation of a gene that is normally adaptive. However, people with maladaptive genes rarely exceed 1% of the population, while male homosexuality apparently occurs much more frequently (Whitam and Mathy 1986; Gadpaille 1980; Diamond 1993). Another possibility is that a recessive gene for homosexuality might have advantages that allow it to pass on to future generations. For example, homosexuals could directly help their relatives (who share the recessive gene) raise more children. This "kin selection" hypothesis predicts more homosexuality in those societies where homosexuals could most help their relatives (for example, in endogamous societies where homosexuals would live nearby). Nevertheless, cross-cultural research shows that this is not the case (Werner 1979). Another possibility is that a homosexual gene itself, when combined with non-homosexual genes, may provide reproductive advantages. This latter scenario is sometimes known as the "heterozygous" hypothesis, although it is really about any type of gene combination (LeVay 1994; Sommer 1990). \n\nThe heterozygous argument suggests that homosexuality results from genes for submissive behavior. An animal possessing only submissive genes would fail to reproduce for lack of trying. But an animal possessing only genes for dominance would also fail to reproduce because it would get killed for taking too many risks. It is the "heterozygous" males, who would most likely pass on their genes. By the genetic laws of probability, this would leave every generation with a certain percentage of individuals at the extremes. For example, if each of a pair of chromosomes had only one "homosexual" locus with only two possible alleles (one for dominance and one for submissiveness) this would leave a heterozygous couple with 25% of their offspring homozygous for submissiveness, 50% heterozygous, and 25% homozygous for dominance. If, however, homosexuality were the result of the interaction of five ge
940490
It's a strange past time and I failed to see the point of it. Then again, each of us has their own fetish. Some people like to suck people's toe and it supposedly aroused them. I have a friend who always buy shoes for his girlfriend whenever he goes overseas. Apparently, high heels arouses him?
495445
The seize doesn't change if men will be married or wont!\nBesides there is no "normal" lenght but only some average.\nAnd for (USA) men within 25-35 it is:\nErect Length \nMODEST = 14 cm.  (5.4")\nAVERAGE = 16 cm. (6.3")\nErect Circumference\nMODEST = 11,5 cm. (4.5")\nAVERAGE= 12,5 cm. (5.0")\nSeize for unerected (flabby) penis is unimportant and is a more variable item.
192260
Well, MY OPINION (as there is no scientific proof) would be that it is genetic.\n\nFace it, in a society where homosexuals are RIDICULED, would you choose to be gay?  \n\nAlso, do you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?  Do you CHOOSE to brown eyed? Left handed? 6ft tall?\n\nOh, and if they can prove that alcoholism is genetic (there is proof of this), why can't homosexuality be genetic?