Internet Condom Logic

THIS POST HAS BEEN RETRACTED!

condomHow to expand your intellect via the Internet

In 2012, a blog poster named Wolfman who supposedly lives in Dongguan, China states:

I have a friend who’s in a senior management position of the Chinese operations for an international condom brand. He’s been in China more than 10 years, and is responsible (among other things) for market research.

He told me that condom sizes in China have been changed; that a Western “large” is “extra-large” in China; “normal” is “large”; and “small” is “normal” (or whatever the size descriptions are…I doubt they actually call it “small”). Foreign brands had to do this because the majority of Chinese men needed the smaller size, but didn’t like buying condoms labeled as such. This change in labeling was made some 15 years ago.

So the normal (average) Chinese penis in 1997 (15 years back from 2012) was the width of a small Western condom (aaah yaah!). Western condom sizes from Joanis (1990): large (55/56 mm), standard (52 mm) and small (49 mm). Thus the average Chinese penis width is 49 mm.

Wessels, Lue and McAninch (1996) found an erect circumference of 12.30 ± 1.31 cm for 80 American males, 90% of whom were self-described Africans and Europeans. Assuming that the 10% Asian males depressed this value, let us take the upper limit as the average i.e. 13.61 cm or 136.1 mm.

If circumference (C) is 136.1 mm, girth = 136.1/π = 43.3 mm ≠ 52 mm (Western normal) and <<< 49 mm (Western small). Clearly this is not correct so perhaps the assumption is incorrect. So let’s be Bayesian advocates and input a value of 49 mm (C = 153.9 mm) for the Asians.

So 0.9X + 0.1 (153.9) = 136.1 mm, 0.9X = 136.1 – 15.39 = 120.71, X = 134.12 mm and girth = 134.12/π ≈ 43 mm. Oh dear, what has happened? Why is the average US European and African penile girth less than a Western small condom? And why are they a 6 mm smaller than the Chinese?

So the Chinese have small Western penises but can gloat on the even smaller endowed US Africans and Europeans who probably go for custom made snuggiest fit condoms. This is unassailable Internet condom logic.

But there is more, Wolfman continues:

However, he said that his own market research indicates that among younger urban Chinese men, the average condom size has increased, particularly in the past decade. Curiously (or not so curiously), the average height of Chinese people has also been increasing during that period (due to improved nutrition, decreased environmental stresses, etc.). His own theory is that it has more to do with overall average body size (ie. smaller men of any race will, on average, have smaller penises…so those groups that tend to be shorter will also tend to have smaller penises), and as Chinese grow bigger, so do their attendant dangly bits. Doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me…their arms and legs are getting longer, so why not their penises?

It is generally agreed that secular height increases are the result of nutrition. However, there are three issues one must consider:

  1. In 1880, the average European male was 166 cm or less than 5 ft 6″ (Malina 2004) which is the same height as many present Chinese;
  2. Quite a few Africans (like in Nigeria) are shorter than the average Chinese; and
  3. The present Chinese condom size is 52 mm or the Western average (Chi 2011).

So what is the Internet condom logic? Europeans use large Western condoms, the Chinese use average Western condoms, some Africans use small Western condoms and most US Africans and Europeans are pencil dicks. Gotta love Internet scholarship.

SOURCES:

Chi, Xu. 2011. Expats say condoms don’t fit. Shanghai Daily (online). http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7624059.html [accessed: 2013-01-14].

Joanis, C., Brookshire, T., Piedrahita, C., Steiner, M., Diakite, M., and J. Esibi. 1990. Evaluation of Two Condom Designs: A Comparison of Standard and Larger Condoms in Ghana, Kenya, and Mali. Durham, USA: Family Health International.

Malina, Robert. 2004. Secular trends in growth, maturation and physical performance. A review. Anthropological Review 67: 3-31.

Wessels, Hunter., Lue, Tom., and Jack McAninch. 1996. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation. Journal of Urology 156: 995-997.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Internet Condom Logic

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s