Give me estimated specific statistics for a 18.2cm BPEL and 15cm girth erect penis. Make assumptions if you need to. Measurement is precise and not biased.
Executive summary
You’re asking where an erect penis measuring 18.2 cm BPEL with 15.0 cm girth sits relative to published distributions. Using large meta-analyses and clinical studies, the typical erect length centers around ~13.1–13.9 cm and typical erect girth around ~11.7–12.2 cm, so 18.2 cm length is well above average and 15.0 cm girth is markedly larger than usual (studies show means ≈13.12–13.93 cm length and ≈11.66–12.23 cm girth) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Below I convert those raw comparisons into percentile-style context, note measurement issues and competing viewpoints, and flag important limits in the reporting.
1. Where the numbers come from — the baseline studies and meta‑analyses
Clinical, medically measured datasets and systematic reviews are the basis for reliable averages. A widely cited aggregation of 15,521 medically measured men produced mean erect length ≈13.12 cm and mean erect circumference ≈11.66 cm [5] [2]. More recent meta‑analyses and systematic reviews have pooled many studies and reported pooled erect‑length means in the 13.9 cm range (95% CI 13.2–14.65 cm) and similar girth estimates depending on the sample [3] [6]. Separate large samples of self‑measured or motivated samples have reported slightly different means (e.g., ~14.15 cm length and 12.23 cm circumference in a condom‑sizing study) showing measurement context matters [4].
2. Your measurement vs. the published averages — concrete comparison
Your BPEL = 18.2 cm vs. pooled means ~13.1–13.9 cm: that is roughly 4.3–5.1 cm longer than typical published averages [5] [3]. Your girth = 15.0 cm vs. typical published erect girth ~11.66–12.23 cm: that is ~2.8–3.3 cm larger than common study means [5] [4]. Using the 2015/2016 large review nomograms, an erect length of ~15 cm sits near the 85th percentile; by that same nomogram, lengths above ~16–17 cm move into the high‑end tail — so 18.2 cm is in the uncommon upper tail [5]. For girth, clinical work and device/dildo surveys indicate average erect girth typically ~11.7–12.3 cm and that girths around 15+ cm are well above 2 standard deviations in many datasets [5] [7].
3. Estimated percentiles and “rarity” (based on available nomograms and reported SDs)
Published nomograms from the 15,521‑subject synthesis place 11 cm near the 10th percentile and 15 cm near the 85th percentile for erect length; extrapolating, an 18.2 cm erect BPEL would be substantially above the 85th percentile and likely in the upper single‑digit percentiles or rarer — exact percentile depends on the underlying distribution and SD reported in a given paper [5]. For girth, vendor/device comparisons and clinical reports show mean girth ≈11.66–12.23 cm with SDs that make 15 cm multiple SDs above the mean, i.e., a clearly uncommon girth [5] [7]. Exact percentile numbers are not consistently reported across studies; available sources do not give a single definitive percentile for 18.2 cm/15.0 cm combined.
4. Measurement method caveats — why comparisons are messy
Most reputable studies use Bone‑Pressed Erect Length (BPEL) measured by clinicians; self‑reported measures tend to be larger by ~1.3 cm on average, and sample selection (clinic patients, volunteers, condom‑sizing customers) shifts means [8] [4] [9]. Fat pad compression, measurement angle, and whether girth is measured at base or mid‑shaft also change values [10] [11]. The studies you see often combine different methods or adjust self‑reports, so comparisons should use clinically measured BPEL where possible [12] [10].
5. Conflicting datasets and interpretation — alternative viewpoints
Some recent meta‑analyses and regional studies report slightly higher mean erect lengths (e.g., pooled erect length up to ~13.9–13.93 cm or single large clinical samples reporting ~14.15 cm), indicating population and method differences matter [3] [4]. Online community and self‑measured datasets sometimes report even larger averages (not clinician‑measured) — these cannot be treated as equivalent to controlled studies [13] [14]. Both viewpoints agree: your sizes are above typical clinical means, but how “rare” depends on which dataset you choose [3] [5].
6. Practical implications and what studies do and do not say
Clinical literature emphasizes there is wide natural variation and that most men who worry about size have medically normal penises; penile size rarely correlates strongly with other body metrics (height, shoes) and clinical thresholds for “micropenis” are much smaller than the means reported here [15] [11]. Studies about sexual function, partner preference, or mechanical limits (e.g., device/dildo research) note very large girths can affect penetrative compatibility and device design, and some surgical literature suggests caution when creating or accommodating extreme girths [7] [16]. Available sources do not provide data on subjective partner preference specific to a combined 18.2 cm/15.0 cm measurement.
Limitations: I relied on pooled averages, nomograms and selected large clinical studies provided in the files; exact percentiles for the combined length/girth pair are not published in a single source here, so some extrapolation is necessary. Sources disagree modestly depending on method — I flagged those differences above [5] [3] [4].