A LITTLE CURIOSITY. A VERY SPECIFIC GRAPH.
Has she been with
bigger?
Your overthinking.
Now in two dimensions.
Length. Girth. What women chose in a study.
And a hypothetical ex or ten.
02 / THE BIGGER PICTURE
The preference map.
33 model choices
STUDY-CHOICE CONCENTRATIONRelative scale
Lowest concentrationHighest concentration in this view
Women’s selectionsSimulated partnersYouOutside study range · unscored
Smoothed study choices. The 0–100 scale is relative within this view, not a satisfaction percentage.
Explore the study now. Add your measurements to see yourself and a simulated lineup.
Women’s preferences · Prause et al. (2015). Individual tastes vary.
Tap a point for its measurements, or open the data tables below.
03 / THE QUESTION YOU CAME FOR
Has she been with bigger?
A model estimate. Real dating histories aren’t random samples.
Length percentile
Girth percentile
Your measurement is in an extreme model tail. Treat precise rankings here cautiously.
How many in the lineup?
Longer
Thicker
Counts describe this simulated draw. Model averages describe the expected counts across repeated draws.
Who lands in a more popular spot?
“More popular” means higher smoothed study-choice concentration. It doesn’t measure sexual performance or your partner’s personal taste.
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
What do the letters mean?
The letters group positions on the women’s preference map. A means more study choices were concentrated nearby; F means fewer. The counts describe a simulated lineup.
A: 80–100 · B: 60–79.9 · C: 40–59.9 · D: 20–39.9 · E: 10–19.9 · F: 0–9.9.
These are our map bands. The study did not assign letter grades, and a letter does not measure sexual performance or your partner’s personal taste.
The assumptions behind those dots
These are scenarios, not measured correlations. We combine Veale’s 2015 erect length and girth distributions in a normal model and draw independent people. Changing this assumption moves the partner dots and joint odds, not the study choices.
Show me the method ↗The actual selections & simulated coordinates
Long-term choices · 60 participants
Only selected models appear. Unlisted sizes may not have been offered. A blank area does not mean “disliked.”
| Length | Girth | Selections |
|---|
One simulated lineup
Enter your measurements and a count to generate a scenario.
| Fictional name | Length | Girth | Map score |
|---|
THE RECEIPTS
Playful question.
Actual research.
The preferences are observed.
The past partners are simulated.
Your partner still gets the final word.
What did women actually choose?
Prause et al. (2015) recruited 75 women and offered 33 physical models. We plot the 60 participants who answered both context questions. The average choices were about 6.33 × 4.79 inches for long-term and 6.41 × 4.97 inches for one night (length × circumference).
This small California sample describes those participants’ selections. It isn’t a satisfaction score or a universal ideal.
Study ↗ · Original data & questionnaire ↗How do you estimate other partners?
Your count sets the number of dots. Each dot gets a simulated length and girth from a model using Veale et al.’s 2015 averages and individual standard deviations. The default treats the two dimensions as independent; explore other assumed correlations above.
Redrawing shows another equally possible sample. It doesn’t change the analytical odds. Neither the count nor the simulation can identify someone’s actual past partners.
Measurement reference ↗What if my partner isn’t a woman?
The question and copy adapt to your partner. The preference layer still shows women’s study responses; we don’t relabel them as men’s or nonbinary people’s preferences. Turn that layer off to focus on you and the simulated lineup.
Pronouns don’t determine anatomy, taste, or dating history. The count is yours to set.
Does a warmer spot mean better sex?
It means more study choices nearby. The heat view smooths the observed selections; the exact view shows their true coordinates and counts. Participants chose from 33 models, so this is an incomplete map of possible preferences.
The study measured model choices, not your compatibility, skill, or how much someone wants you.