Talk:Human penis size

Hmm, so much discussion over the statistics of the male penis, What the hell does it matter

these seem like some smart guys. im not making gay jokes, cause i had also been on the page, but, is this really worth discussing. we could be talking about vaginas for christ sake. i just used it to mess with the "my gay male penis guy" (didn't originally say that) i don't think woman mind how big just how we men use it is what they think about so, please, shut up, and do something... not penis factoid related.

My Gay male penis

Several studies have found that gay men have larger penises than straight males in both length and width. http://dailydish.typepad.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/gay_peepees.html http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/stats_and_willi.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000330094644.htm http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LCLbyZ7nbTh4wQJn8K4hBQ3DZQQjPvrcGN2pZxMNh64Wt2jLfsKt!174493570?docId=5001903433

Source #63

Source #63 finally works, but it's not a valid source! It's a penis enlargement website, a unscientific source by any means. Do a search on google with any of those doctor names and you will all see penis enlargement websites. It should link to the doctor's actual research (if he even exists). Sources like these are the reason people criticize the credibility of Wikipedia. I would remove it, but I'd rather have your inputs first.

I accidentally put source 62 as the source, but it was actually #63.

Human Vagina Size

Just wondering why there is no article on the above topic also. Have there been no studies on the subject because of the difficulty of measuring? I know the vagina grows or 'ballons' in width, depth and volume during sex as blood flows to it, similar to an erection in the penis. I suspect there would be as much variety in the size of the vagina as seen in the penis. And of course pregnancy can have a dramatic effect as well. Is anyone aware of any studies on this subject? I feel it warrants an equal amount of attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.11.30 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Page broken

Altering my ealier post, sorry I got overly upset.

The mayo clinic website on an article talking about size enhancment says the normal size is 5-7 inches: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/penis/MC00026

BTW, the mayo site says a micropenis is 3 inches or less in size, but even then sex can work out (the G-spot is usually 2 inches inside of a woman).

Update= I FOUND THE ERROR!!! The studies are fine look here "RESULTS: Mean flaccid length was 8.8 cm., stretched length 12.4 cm. and erect length 12.9 cm. Neither patient age nor size of the flaccid penis accurately predicted erectile length. Stretched length most closely correlated with erect length. CONCLUSIONS: Only men with a flaccid length of less than 4 cm., or a stretched or erect length of less than 7.5 cm. should be considered candidates for penile lengthening. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8709382&dopt=Abstract reference #10

The person who wrote the wikipedia article flipped the 2 and 1 in the number 12 backwards 12.9 cm = 5.07 inches erect length (oo I guess mine isn't tiny =P). The average penis lenght for a 15 year old is about 5 inches.

I still violated this page

Specifically the part about erect length. Even when checking the sources you can see that they are grossly misquoted.. e.g. the study for lifestyle Condoms which is quoted as "average of 23.9 cm (9.49 in) with a standard deviation of 2.1 cm (0.8 in)". This is grossly wrong as the linked(!) source states "The average erect penis length was 5.877 inches (14.928cm). Standard deviation was 0.825 inches (2.096cm)"

Also someone put in "Any length lower than these averages is considered too short and a physician should be contacted."

So yeah, someone with editing rights should put those things straight again, as right now the page is filled with major errors.

FoxSpirit (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

penis images the penis pictures in both flacid and erect state dont seem to reflect variation on size. both penises look below average of 6.25. i believe that at least a 7 inch penis should also shown. these penis's shown seem considerably small (no offence) and should reflect a more average length and size.

Image: Priapus figure from pompei.

It's interesting that a whole section is dedicated to Romans and Greeks thinking big schlongs were uncouth, yet there's a depiction of Mars right there in all his glory with a three foot dong. Further an interesting postcard a frind of mine took a photo of [1] depicts pompeian art yet again depicting massive penis in a good light.

I think we need more sourcing and more extrapolation. 211.30.71.59 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. They were sourcing Greek info to erroneously show that Romans disliked the large penises of Priapus figures. Greeks and Romans are not the same thing. I fixed the picture caption and added a correct reference for Romans. Wits (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

i have a “micropenis”

The expression “2.5 standard deviations” does not say anything to me. How many percent of the average is that?

2007-03-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.229.19.25 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Assuming a standard normal distribution, about 1-2%.--Izno 09:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the size of an average human penis and the the size of a normal human clitoris that does not sound credible at all.

2007-04-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

In what way do you find it to not be credible? Is the percentage too high, or too low? What do you feel the correct percentage is? Does your comment apply to just length, or girth (circumference) as well?

-Solcis 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a miscommunication here; I think Lena is talking about percentage and Izno is talking about percentile. Rosemary Amey 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wondered how small a penis has to be to be called a micropenis compared to an average one.

2007-06-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Compared to one of average size, a penis must be at least 2 1/4 inches (5.9 cm) shorter than average to be considered a micropenis in length; and at least 2 1/8 inches (5.4 cm) thinner than average (in circumference) to be considered a micropenis in girth. I'm going on the definition of a micropenis to be at least -3 standard deviations beyond the average. For Kinsey, this was determined to be 0.77 inches (2 cm) for length and 0.71 (1.8 cm) inches for girth.

-Solcis 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked about percents of the average not inches or centimetres. Futhermore, you don't tell werther it is adoult size or that of a newborn.

2007-06-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Well, according to the Lifestyles data, 0.7% of all men (1 out of every 143 men) can be considered in the "micropenis" category in terms of length; and a whopping 3.3% of all men (1 out of every 30 men) in terms of girth. According to raw statistical calculations using standard deviations, as stated above, 1-2% of all men can be classified in this way. The Lifestyles data are probably a little bit closer to the truth, though. All of the numbers listed in this section pertain solely to adult penis size. Again, I hope these numbers answer your questions.

-Solcis 10:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don’t understand. I have rough idea of the average size of a human penis compared to body size. (I got this idea from the sexuality education.) If I see a photo of a naked man I can tell if it is unusually small or oversized. Yet I don’t know in exact centimetres how long an average penis is. How much smaller does a micropenis have be? Does it have to be 1/4, 1/5, or anything such?

2007-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Look at my response on June 1st. I believe I've already answered your question. The average penis is roughly 6 inches in length, which translates to 15 cm. As per my previous post, a penis must be at least 2 1/4 inches (~6 cm) shorter than average (i.e. less than 4 inches [~10 cm] in length or less) in order to be classified as a micropenis. I can't possibly state it any more clearly than that.

One more thing: comparing the size of a penis to the overall body size of a man (or woman, for that matter) can be VERY deceiving. After all, a penis that appears to be of "average" size on a man who is 6'3", 220 lbs (190 cm, 100 kg), will appear to be downright huge on a man who is only 5'6", 150 lbs (168 cm, 68 kg). The term "average" means nothing here without a frame of reference. Appearance and relativity are everything. The frame of reference is the overall body size of the man in question.

The porn industry has taken great advantage of this issue of size relativity to increase video sales. The vast majority of female performers are 5'6" (168 cm) or less. Some are even under 5' (152 cm). Most of them, regardless of height, have hands that are smaller than average. Few male performers are over 6' (183 cm) and most are well under 5'10" (178 cm); in terms of weight, few are over 200 lbs and most weigh much less. Put an 8+ inch (20+ cm) penis on a man of that kind of body size with a woman who fits the above criteria and it will appear to be much, MUCH larger than it really is. That's where ridiculous "porn measurements" of 11-15" (28-38 cm) come from.

-Solcis 07:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I who thought it had to be too small to function sexually to be called a micropenis...

2007-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Jordanian men

In a 2005 study, "Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction," the purpose of the work was to determine penile size in adult normal (group one, 271) and impotent (group two, 109) men. In group one mean midshaft circumference was 8.98±1.4 cm (3.54±0.55 in), mean flaccid length was mean 9.3±1.9 cm (3.66±.75 in), and mean stretched length was 13.5±2.3 cm (5.31±.91 in). In group two, mean flaccid length was 7.7±1.3 cm (3.03±.51 in), and mean stretched length was 11.6±1.4 cm (4.57±.55 in).[43]

From the description, this study appears to be comparing the size in Jordanian men with and without erectile dysfunction. No comparison is done with men of other 'races' and so I don't see why this is in the race section. It should be in the studies section or perhaps a new section on erectile dysfunction and penis size. It should not be in the race section unless the study authors specifically compared their results to that of other races and if this is the case, the description should mention this Nil Einne 11:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BETTER DATA

This is the best study I've seen (Pub Med article, see below abstract). Data is taken from 3,300 17-19 year old men, then randomized.

Shows average length, WHEN ERECT, of 4.9 INCHES (12.5cm). That makes more sense wrt the gym showers I've been in.

    (with all due respect, why are the men erect in the gym showers you're frequenting?)

1: Eur Urol. 2001 Feb;39(2):183-6. Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males.

Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafe M, Di Loro F, Biscioni S, Masieri L.

Department of Urology, University of Florence, Italy.

OBJECTIVE: The knowledge of normal variations in the size of male external genitalia is of considerable interest to several disciplines. We carried out an extensive study in young Italian males to provide estimates of normal variations of penile dimensions. METHODS: The penile length in flaccid and stretched states and the penile circumference were measured in a random group of 3,300 young men aged 17-19 years and free from endocrine disorders and from congenital or acquired abnormalities of the penis. In a random sample of 325 subjects of the same set of people, penile length and circumference were also correlated with weight and height. Statistical analysis was performed with the Sperman test, because our data were not normally distributed as tested by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < 0.01). RESULTS: The median values of penile dimensions recorded in the present study are flaccid length 9.0 cm, flaccid circumference, at the middle of the shaft, 10.0 cm, and stretched length 12.5 cm. We also observed that the penile dimensions are highly correlated with height and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Since penile length and circumference correlate with anthropometric parameters such as weight and height, we suggest to consider themselves as two bodily measures which display a wide extent of normal variability along the general population.

PMID: 11223678 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Asian J Androl. 2003 Sep;5(3):185-9. Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men.Son H, Lee H, Huh JS, Kim SW, Paick JS.

(Partial)RESULTS: The mean flaccid length, flaccid circumference, stretched length and fat pad depth of the 123 subjects were (6.9+/-0.8) cm, (8.5+/-1.1) cm, (9.6 +/-0.8) cm and (1.1 +/-0.4) cm, respectively. --75.73.227.22 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where you got 3.8 inches as I don't see that mentioned at all in the study, its a legitimate source, but BS reporting on your part.Colemangracie 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link for these studies? and is there a particular reason for the age group in the first one (17-19)?

Does "stretched length" really mean erect length, or does it mean flaccid but stretched? Rosemary Amey 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a weird result to refer."The stretched length was measured after maximum penile stretching at the first attempt." The link of full article is here: http://www.asiaandro.com/1008-682X/5/185.htm It seems unfair to refer this result with other erected penis sizes. 160.39.20.70 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Edit the Priapus caption / any content regarding Romans

Whoever wrote the caption for the Priapus image, and the accompanying text related to Roman perceptions of penis size, is incorrect. The Greeks did consider large penises unattractive, but the exact opposite was true of the Romans. The Romans found large penises desirable.

If anyone requires scholarly proof, Andrew Dalby's "Empire of Pleasures" is the current standard for Roman leisure studies.

Please change this ASAP. 74.109.107.248 04:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I thought the same thing. Fixed caption and content.

Briefly mentioned that Romans had a view contrary to that of the Greeks, with a supporting ref. It would be good for someone to provide additional sourcing so that this may be explained in more detail. Wits (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, Remove the Entire "Historical Perceptions" Section...

... OR let someone who actually knows a thing or two write it. Whoever wrote this section has no idea what they're talking about. The rambling B.S about models in cold studios in ancient Greece, and smaller avergae penis sizes "back then" (which is a terrible turn of phrase to incolude in a Wikipedia article) is complete nonsense. I request that it be removed, or re-written by someone who knows what they're talking about. 74.109.107.248 04:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that section should be removed unless re-written with a more encompassing historical perspective. It appears to be worded slightly better now, but I'd still say it's a somewhat dubious section.

Historically there were a lot of cultures with perceptions contrary to that of the "high-brow" or elite of the Greeks (who according to section's reference preferred "immature males" with "small pricks" or in other words found young boys most sexually desirable) and their aesthetic followers. For instance, some ancient cultures widely practiced (and in some cases still practice) penis enlargement procedures (not that these were useful, but indicates contrary cultural perceptions).

That Romans and Renaissance artists followed some of the same artistic aesthetics as Greeks doesn't mean they had the same sexual or cultural preference as is implied with the Roman picture caption (which should be removed soon if cite isn't provided, been lacking cite for 3+ months). More researched view should be presented (or section removed otherwise). Wits 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some observations.

Are you sure the average penis size of 5" is correct? I always thought of myself as average at 7" but according to this I'm not... 5" seems very small. Where is this measured from? Is there any other data available on this? I've noticed that the graph takes precedence over the text, which states otherwise. 6.1" seems much more accurate to me, although I haven't seen to many erect penises in my time, other than in porn films when they are huge anyway. 213.218.227.141 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   Like the way you had to tell everyone your 7".  NO ONE CARES! 

My take on observations.

5" hasn't been stated as the conclusive average. One of the three verified (non-self measured) studies cited found 5" as average. The graph you are examining is for the lifestyles study on college students which found 5.9" as average.

It is possibly misleading that the lifestyles study is grouped differently than the other "scientific" studies. Some people may take this to mean it's less valid. In fact all 3 studies (as is usually the case) have their inherent biases. I could go into detail on several different factors (on each study), but I'll limit my interpretations to that relating to your "observations".

If you further examine the studies you will see that the first two clinical studies had a much older average age. Aging doesn't accurately predict penis length. That is to say, a 50 year old won't necessarily be smaller or larger than a 21 year old. Each individual is different. But if you look at the average size of different ages, size decreases slightly with age.

Does this mean men's penises shrink as they age or younger men are growing larger penises? No, the most likely reason is that men tend to put on some weight past their 20's and this will cause additional fat to obstruct their penis thereby giving a lesser measurement.

This all being my own interpretation, it's of course not encyclopedic material (no self research allowed). It may be wise to include some additional information on the studies so readers can make their own interpretation. Wits 15:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I expanded the information for the studies. Added the number of men measured for each study and the makeup (age, health, and method of erection obtainment).

If anyone has full access to the first study they should add more info. Such as average age and any other makeup factors present. It appears that only the abstract (lacking in details) is available for free.

Wits 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I found more information on the studies. I'm not willing to pay $30 bucks to read the full 1st study, but the freely available 2nd study makes comparison references to the 1st study which include details such as age, ethnicity, etc...

Wits 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind when adding details on the study you can only add details from the study, not additional details you feel it would be useful for the reader to know as that is a form of OR Nil Einne 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Good point Nil Einne. I've added details found to be in each study. Incidentally some of what I read (in studies, or sources quoting them) supports the occurrence of biases that I had previously presumed (in the talk section here). So it's no longer just "my own interpretation" as I had initially said here.

Admittedly, the section of the 1st study detailing "older men have a thicker pubic fat pad" may need some reworking as it was based on other sources (multiple) quoting the study. I don't at all doubt the factualness of what was found (the older, more overweight men sampled in this study, were found to have more fat obstructing their penis, not that this would apply to most older men), but it may be said better. Do a quick google search on "study wessels fat pad penis" and you can see some supporting sources. Best thing would be if someone with direct access to the 1st study (which costs too much for me $30) to review this for factualness. I'll tag that section for review.

As previously mentioned, most details for the first study (age, ethnicity, etc...) were found quoted in the freely available 2nd study. All other details I added for all 3 studies are details credibly shown to be directly from the studies.

None of the individual studies should be taken as being the definite average (by itself) since each study is composed of a different subgroup. In general, study 1 is older/overweight, 2nd study is middle aged who were evaluated for ED (for some reason), and 3rd study is college aged students who volunteered for measuring (with some coercion, free t-shirts, etc...). Many of the students couldn't get it up, probably from drinking too much on Spring break (hehe... kidding with last part there, although it's probably true IMHO).

Ty580 truthfully added to the article that the lifestyles study may be sample biased. Really all 3 studies are sample biased by that same criteria (which was wiki referenced). Which brings me to a question related to your post (Nil Einne) on "Original Research".

Is it acceptable for "useful details" to be added on to the study details that are outside the scope of the study, but supported by outside sources? Such as Ty's mention of the study possibly being sampled biased, or the quote from a separate meta-analysis for the first study which showed no correlation was found between age and penis size.

Really I believe the (outside) information should be added since it gives more balance to the article. I was thinking of adding some of the same information myself, but I wasn't sure if it was acceptable (since it's outside of scope of 3 individual studies). Although it would make sense if in some way the separate information was made more distinctly known as being such. Such as by being put in italics.

Wits 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian observation

Australia's Aussiebum.com is the only company in the world that has invented an underwear for enhancing the male penis size? There product is called wonderjock. Since Australians are mostly of European descent, one can concluded that European descendants have smaller penis size.

Could you make that any more sarcastic? Haha. Wits 13:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I have removed some details which were questionable (need better sourcing to confirm). Explained in topic below. Good job keeping things in line everyone.Wits 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"older men have a thicker pubic fat pad"

I believe the following is original speculation not contained in the original source. Can anybody provide quotes from the source or other sources to justify leaving it in the article? "Author Wessels said that the patients were heavier than usual on average. With older men having a thicker pubic fat pad on average (which lessens non bone-pressed erection measurements) vs. younger men."--Ty580 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This was added by Wits here and it does appear that it may be OR, see Talk:Human penis size#Some observations. You might want to try contacting wits directly as it appears he/she read the study (or just wait, he/she appears to regularly check out the talk page) Nil Einne 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Ty580 14:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Heya Ty580. After some ruminating, I've realized that I was hasty in including that information specifically. My sources quote Wessel as saying the men were heavier and finding a larger fat pad on older men vs. younger. But the sources aren't credible enough (for an encyclopedia) and it's speculative that the accompanying details "(which lessens non bone-pressed erection measurements)" are included in this study.

There is enough to warrant further looking into the matter, but not enough to justify leaving it in the article as is. So I will remove the questionable information. If someone finds a better source (preferably access to the full study), they should give the details on this (if really there). All the other details I added for the studies are supported by credible sources, but this part was my mistake.Wits 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'Sexual preference' citations

If we can clean up whatever the problem is with the citations in the section Sexual preference, that section can probably be merged into the Modern preference and Vaginal response sections, as there's a large amount of overlap already. Anybody know what the problem with the section is?--Ty580 14:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to merge the "modern perceptions" and "sexual preferences" sections because of the overlapping. Having the information separated by the pop culture section breaks up the flow. The vaginal response section should remain separate in my opinion.

Wits 12:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted section - Men famous for their large penis

This entire section needs to be redone. The intro paragraph talks of Holmes's penis size when erect, then later says it was "never actually stiff." Other stats are given in fractions of an inch, still others as a decimal (.5), and what exactly is 8.3"? They should all be in the same format. And if the size isn't known, then how can somebody be listed here? The whole section is slipshod and unsourced, and will be re-visited and re-deleted until presented in correct form. 72.76.79.42 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of coercing your way to having it your way, you may decide to enter into a discussion. Your grievances are all valid, however, the section looks the way it does because the information has been harvested from the current articles about the individuals listed. This makes it an excellent incitement for calibrating the breadth of articles involved, not least with respect to which criteria should be applied for accepting the claims of penile largeness in the first place. Instead of rejecting the section on sight because of these flaws, this should be welcomed as an opportunity to perform a much needed clean-up of a great number of porn actor biographies which may not previously have received the necessary care and attention.

The above should also be seen in light of the category Category:Men with unusually large penis which I created at the same time as the contended section, and which currently is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, then why don't you separate the chaff from the wheat when you're making your harvest? What nonsense: it's OK to insert mediocre content because that's the way it came from other sources?? And now that you've presented the crap, please, do somebody else come by and clean it up for you?? NO! DELETED! (And watch the same happen to the other crap category you "created.") 72.68.113.61 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need this in an article about penis size. Why not "men famous for their small penis"? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 12:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's too much subjectivity -- it's quite possibly an inherently unencyclopedic list. What is "large" in this context, and who is "famous"? Any porn star? Who measures it, or is it subjective hearsay, porn/sales/media hype, and viewer impressions? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have any of these men been objectively measured? Porn stars are notorious for exaggerating their size, even more so than the average man. So to include these subjective "stats" is ridiculous in my honest opinion. 208.252.179.26 09:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this section is completely pointless, and is completely unreferenced. It ought to be deleted. Carl.bunderson 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed work under way on the respective porn actors' articles, so why not simply tag those that aren't satisfactorily referenced and then remove them after some time if sourcing isn't provided? One intention for me in setting up this section was to have a focal point for a clean-up effort on all these articles. __meco 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Carl.bunderson 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought of perhaps using a table for the presentation to allow for the addition of source for the claims.

Name	Penis size	Source	Comments
Jonah Falcon	13.5"	Rolling Stone.Com	9.5" flaccid
Lexington Steele	11"	Steele and his agent

__meco 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Carl.bunderson, the section is completely pointless and completely unreferenced, it is also mediocre and slipshod and spoils an otherwise decent article. It will be deleted and deleted. 72.76.93.37 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

With such an attitude toward communal processes I can understand why you do not use a regular account. I find disagreement over this section readily understandable, however, your attitude does not promote teamwork or consensus decision making. __meco 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources was just one problem, the other is that it is a largely trivial quality. If you ask my friends what makes me they don't turn around and say "Oh, he has a ten foot penis" they say "Oh, he's a boring guy; he's good at Maths; he likes computers etc." These are a list of people otherwise not linked - I don't see the benefit of having it on the page - per WP:NOT (It is not an indiscriminate collection of information)

Also, it seems as though reliable sources will be very hard to find. I don't really know where to find independant sources about the size of a man's penis. They will mostly be from porn sites or magazines who try to sell him and may exaggerate his size. In addition, it turns this article not into "Men with big penises" but "Men with big penises with a source somewhere." which reduces its use and requirement to be on this page.

If you would like an area to discuss the improvement of articles such as those, perhaps set up a WikiProject for porn stars? Hydrostatics 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whereas you and your friends may not be comfortable discussing penises, that does not make the subject of penis size a trivial one. Any student of anthropology will know that this is a subject which has been foremost on men's and women's minds throughout history. There have been numerous cults devoted to phallic worship, and in Ancient Greece, the cradle of western civilization, this was so important that statues of erect penises were on display everywhere (herms).

As for the WikiProject on porn stars, it's called WikiProject Pornography. __meco 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting whether or not the subject of penises is trivial, clearly in past societies and society today it is fairly influencial for whatever reasons. What I am trying to suggest is that when we are trying to define a person, we don't normally define them by the size of their penis or any other personality trait. If you look at the article on Red Hair, they do not have a list of people with red hair, which is similar to this. Potentially even more similar is the page on Human Height, where again no list is made of tall people. Why is this necessarily different from these other cases? This is mainly just a list of people, otherwise totally different, linked because they have one part of their body large than other men around them.

I suggested a Wikiproject because you said earlier "One intention for me in setting up this section was to have a focal point for a clean-up effort on all these articles.", but thankyou for drawing it to my attention Hydrostatics 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the discrepancy that you point out is that of drawing attention, providing status and attracting awe. Whereas the other human characteristics you mention are factors which make people stand out, they do not do so in a way that channels enormous amounts of attention towards the individual with that trait. This is why the subject itself is worthy of particular treatment, in my view. It could, of course, be separated into an article or a list by itself, however, I was of the opinion that what better place to naturally integrate such a segment than into the article about human penis size. Another possible place where it could be absorbed would be the phallus article, as it deals specifically with the cultural and religious aspects of historical penis attention (i.e. large erect in particular, ithyphallic). __meco 06:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hydrostatics, the section is trivial. It is also unsourced, mediocre and slipshod, and ruins an otherwise decent article. 72.76.100.45 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But there is a section for all of these people to be concentrated... Category:Men with unusually large penis. There is a list of all people who should appear on this article by current criteria. This is currently in the middle of a CfD discussion and so I would advocate waiting to see the result of that discussion. If it is deleted, then I think we should delete this section for the same reason. If it is not deleted, I would advocate putting in a paragraph about the extreme well-sourced cases and perhaps a "for a list of more people, see this category." Opinions? Hydrostatics 13:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To meco and the anonymous users doing so, can you please stop mindlessly reverting the article. No consensus has been reached so to do so is just defying the idea of having discussions. Two separate parties have made their case here and since neither side views their argument any less fiercely than the other please may we reach a consensus before any more reverting happens, and just stick at a constant edit no matter which way it is? WP:3RR is really being stretched to its limit, with meco's fourth reversion being 24 hours and 2 minutes after the first. Perhaps just talking about it may provide us with a rule rather than fighting? Hydrostatics 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hydrostatics, thank you for your intervention at this point, however, meco is recalcitrant and insistent in having a section concerning pornography inserted into an article that deals primarily with anatomy and sexuality. His arguments are couched in intellectual drivel and are unconvincing. Plus, you can see where his heart is with his fourth revison. Let the section he wants to include suffer the same fate as his silly category: deletion! 72.68.123.113 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole reason this article exists in the first place is because of the inordinate importance placed on the size of the penis culturally. This article is nice and scientific and "clean", however, it does not benefit the understanding of the subject at large to omit the connection to culture, be it popular culture as in pornography, or classical culture as in phallus worship throughout human history. My intention is to elaborate on these connections, however, your vehement belligerence and attempts to incite a name-calling match has so far stalled attempts at developing the thought, let alone the section in question. Other connections that I think should be made are to the subconscious symbolism of the phallus, a field which has been investigated by rosicrucian mysticism, alchemists and in our times Jungian psychology. When you find it in your interest to bury the hatchet and cease reviling me, these are avenues that can be discussed and considered by editors who currently stay silent not wanting to get in harm's way. __meco 09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That most definitely sounds very interesting and would be a noteworthy and excellent addition to the article; however that is not what this list is. This list is simply a list of people with large penises, with no mention as to why this is significant in regards to popular culture, it just links together a number of well-endowed porn stars. If your aim is to talk about penis size in popular culture then this most definitely is not the way to do it, I learn nothing about penis worship from reading that section. As I said before, is there no way that you can write a paragraph Culturual Significance of Penis Size, including a paragraph aobut particularly notable people on the list, and then link to the category you created? This will then still discuss the idea of phallus worhsip in popular culture and a place of further research, without simply being an poorly written list in the middle of an otherwise good article. Hydrostatics 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

meco, other editors remain silent (save for some excellent ideas and observations from Hydrostatics, and others) to allow you ample room to embarass yourself further and further -- your pontifications here have become a source of amusement, in your vain and futile attempt to preserve this section which does not belong in this article. Yours is the only attempt at preserving your section; you are alone. It will go the same route as your silly category under discussion for deletion. Many good alternatives have been suggested -- make use of them. Your mediocre list which doesn't belong here will not stand here. 72.68.123.113 12:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

However much I agree with your point of view, remember WP:CIVIL. It's verging on insults towards meco when you say that his "pontifications ... have become a source of amusement." Our aim is to make a consensus through discussion and not name calling or intimidation. As I said, we are aiming for a consensus and not a supermajority so our aims are to reach a compromise through rhetoric, and not just blithely insulting contributions or editors.

Since the debate is getting rather heated with both sides repeating the same argument, do you think it would be worth getting a Third Opinion? Hydrostatics 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But I tell you now, he stands alone. 72.68.123.113 14:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My stated opinion is that once anon user 72.* stops his/her attempts at ridicule and vilification, it will indeed be possible to discuss viable options for developing this section. In the current climate of ridicule and ad hominem attacks, nothing constructive can be accomplished. It appears obvious to me that this is the underhanded strategy of said anonymous user who obviously is a person of some intellectual capacity. And until this is called for what it is, no constructive measures such as the third-party mediation initative would serve any other cause than aborting my preliminary initiative and follow-up suggestions. All such measures are based on the assumption of good faith.

I have made a first proposal for improvement above, however, no response has come yet. I have stated my opinion that it's unlikely constructive collaboration can take place with the air filled with snide insults, attempts to ridicule and a haughty demeanor towards a fellow editor such as that displayed by 72.* __meco 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not talk about a haughty demeanor or underhanded strategy if I were you. Let me translate your latest pontifications above: "I don't want anybody else settling this because 72.* is being mean to me. If somebody tries to settle it, and they tell me that I'm wrong, that means I'll have to give up on what I want." You're like a whining child with an advanced vocab. There are no options for developing your silly section within this article; it does not belong here and it will never be part of this article. 72.68.123.113 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am placing the disputed content here so there may be some specific comments as to how it can be improved instead of merely "delete, delete, delete". __meco 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You can put your table here, you can put your table on your user page, you can put your table up your (I won't say where) ... the fact remains, your list/table does not belong in this article, and will never be included in this article, nor will it ever be included in the pornography project. 72.68.123.113 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Men famous for their large penis

In the world of pornography, an unusually large penis is a high commercial asset. Several porn stars are famous for their penises. The most famous, and perhaps the largest penis belonged to the late John Holmes. The size of his erect penis is highly disputed with some claims ranging from 11 to 16 inches, while some actually fall below 10 inches. One issue with Holmes' penis, however, was that it never actually was stiff. The list which follows of contemporary or deceased porn actors known for their penis sizes is highly unofficial with varying reliability of the claims presented:<! -- Sizes of 8 inches or lower should not be added to the list. For a discussion on what should be the appropriate limit, bring up your point on the talk page. -- >

: There is no discussion for this list because this list does not have a page, is not on a page, and will never be included in the Human penis size article. Nor will it ever be included in the pornography project. 72.68.123.113 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

: There is no discussion for this list because this list does not have a page, is not on a page, and will never be included in the Human penis size article. Nor will it ever be included in the pornography project. 72.68.123.113 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think is the main problem with the list? Is it the idea of collating existing information regarding large penises that upsets you, or the scant substantiation given for many of the claims, or is it something else altogether, or maybe a combination of factors? __meco 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for claims that have been sourced and are verifiable by any person. As such, any contribution needs to be sourced. Any row without an entry in the 'source' column should be deleted. This is the vast majority. Regardless of whether or not the table should go in, the facts need to be sourced or removed. Hydrostatics 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; I think the idea is fine, but whatever isn't sourced shouldn't be kept. Carl.bunderson 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that thinks appear to have calmed, the list was compiled on the spur as I got a hunch there were more than the two individuals which I had become aware of that had exceptionally large penises, and aided by a particular penis size parameter in the {{Male adult bio}} template I found a whole bunch of them. I readily compiled a list and sought out a place where it might fit. Firstly, I'm sure many other than myself found this collection of claims/facts quite interesting, and although it may not be perfectly presentable as is, I think it would be a (minor) pity to let the outcome of this collating effort sink once it has surfaced. Interestingly, the user who nominated the related category, Category:Men with unusually large penis, for deletion also has become the strongest supporter for its keeping in one form or another, bar myself, I suppose. He introduced several (to me) new names of individuals who would be natural selections for this list, names that were not porn actors such as Milton Berle, Porfirio Rubirosa and Jimi Hendrix (mentioned in the category for deletion discussion). Now, as I mentioned, it wasn't a higly meditated move for me to bring this list to the present article. I strongly feel, however, that this article should have some mention of the existence of some people famed for their big organs, in and out of the porn industry. I'll leave it at that for now as I don't want to bring too many issues up at once (reliable sourcing being one particular). __meco 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be confused, and desperate. Editor AnemoneProjectors nominated Category:Men with unusually large penis for deletion; editor AnonEMouse wrote about Milton Berle, Porfirio Rubirosa and Jimi Hendrix in the category for deletion discussion. His mention of three persons other than pornstars whose penises have been discussed is not an endorsement for the inclusion of your silly list in the Human penis size article. You have no support for inclusion, de facto or otherwise, except yourself and any imagined supporters you may have, in your desperation and confusion. 72.76.10.245 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I keep mixing up these two editors. __meco 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not mixing up editors, you're mixed up. In your desperation for support, you believe that the very editor who nominated your category for deletion is now your supporter for including your silly list in this article. You have hung yourself with this. Your effort is sunk. 72.76.10.245 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon, you darn well know meco has support on this issue. Quit making it sound as though you own WP. We work by consensus here, not fiats. Carl.bunderson 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved in this particular discussion but I wanted to make it clear that I do not support the inclusion of the list in the article and I am not AnonEMouse. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison wording

Wording choice?

1. "Both men and women show a marked tendency to rate the visible sexual organs of others (including people of the other gender and intimate partners) more favorably and satisfactory than they rate their own."
2. "Both men and women show a marked tendency to rate the visible sexual organs of others (including people of the other gender and intimate partners) more favorably and satisfactory than the others rate their own."
3. "Both men and women show a marked tendency to rate their own visible sexual organs as less satisfactory in size, than they are rated by the opposite gender."

I'm inclined to go for the former two as probably more accurate and also avoids the emphasis on the negative ("less satisfactory"). Do cites bear out the former wording? Which do people prefer? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture: "A penis of average size"

Is this picture really necessary? The caption and justification for it being in the article is that it is showing a penis of average size. However, there is no scale on the picture so in reality it could just be an inch long as nothing is telling us that it's any longer than that. Hydrostatics 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We are waiting for your contribution :)

Inches or centimeters ?

This article is a mess about inches and centimeters, is there a rules in wikipedia about that in the english encyplopedia?

I personally think that there should be length written in centimeters and in inches between parenthesis: 16 cm (6,30 in), because metric system is more encyclopedic.

Centimeters are hardly more "encyclopedic", but there should be both measurements. Measurement would be 6.3 inches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comix2008 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image: Percentile Plot - Length in Inches

I reworked this chart to have more clearly defined reference lines, and to match the other chart for circumference.

I'm trying to figure out how to put this image into the article, but at this point am at a loss.

File:800px-Penis percentile.jpg

Would someone be so kind as to replace this image? Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonhase (talk contribs) 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible contradiction with micropenis and penis size

This article states that an adult man's penis less than 7cm long is considered a micropenis, and implies that one more than 7cm long is not. The micropenis article states than an adult man's penis at least 2.5 standard deviations shorter than the average is considered a micropenis.

The first linked abstract lists the mean at 12.4 cm (pulled) or 12.9 cm (erect), but doesn't list the standard deviation. This is the shortest of the three studies. It's the shortest of the three linked studies. The third lists the mean at 14.9 and the standard deviation at 2.1 cm - a huge standard deviation - which means 2.5 standard deviations are 5.25 cm and micropenis is 9.65 cm or less. OTTOMH, I suspect the third study overstates both the mean and the standard deviation.

spelling error

I can't edit this page, as it is protected, but I noticed a spelling error "questionablitiy" on this page. 75.61.141.203 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Coldpower27 06:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

===

Another error:

In the "modern perceptions" section, the sentence "Generally women cared more about width than men thought" should be corrected so that the "thought" becomes "though," which is more correct in the context of the sentence.

slight error: "aforementioned" -- isn't

I can't edit, or I'd fix it myself, but "confirming the aforementioned research carried out by Dr Eduardo Gomez de Diego" should be either deleted (since it is aforementioned in the source, but not in the current article), or indeed aforementioned. 80.178.151.94 16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Longest human penis

The longest officially documented human penis was a find by Doctor Robert L. Dickinson. It was (13.5 inches long, 6.25 inches around). An even larger (but unofficial) measurement was obtained in 1969 by Dr. David Reuben (14 inches long). (source: Dickinson, R.L., 1940. The Sex Life of the Unmarried Adult. New York: Vanguard Press).

Add this to the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.239.221 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But is it clear how he measured? Was the measurement pressed to the bone or just rested along the top of the penis? Or was it below the penis? Was it a self-measured find, or did the good doctor use his own tape measure, etc? Duke of Whitstable (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably someone should look up the provided reference and see what exactly it says, and then add it to the article with the appropriate qualifications. --Delirium (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

is it just me..?

i checked on the data under "erect length" and it looks like someone messed with the numbers in the article - for instance, the first study is stated as finding the average erect length to be 21.9cm, but the article itself says 12.9. the numbers for the other two studies are similarly messed up (someone upped the numbers to around 9in, rather than around 6in). ill try to remember to change this tomorrow

Incorrectly cited

Hi, somebody altered at least 1 reference related to the correct measure of an erect penis: if you go to the external link indicated at note 10, you see that the average lenght assessed by a medical team is much shorter than the lenght indicated in the Wikipedia article. Maybe somebody wanted to joke with the data. Sorry I am not able to check out other possible inconsistencies with other references. Will somebody kindly take care of this? [To the Wiki guys: due to the sensitivity of the subject, I think you'd better someway lock the editing of this or similar articles. Is it possiible?] - Giovanni Tagliabue, Milano, Italia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.114.173 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly cited

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/articles/sextips.html is the correct link for reference 38 "How to achieve organsm during intercourse" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.66.229 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Penis size by nationality

Anyone else have a problem with quoting a penis enlargement site as a legitimate source?--Insomniac By Choice (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the sources seem shady. I suggest the research be verified or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc911 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The sizes are not accurate. The complete and updated data has not been shown. The data is not accurate.

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/global_penis_size_survey.shtml

I think that the idea that the bigger, the better, is a bit weird, illogical, because just like different nationalities tend to have different heights, then it is natural that the "optimal penis size" also differs. However, the current "average" penis length seems to put elephants(the Swedes) and mice(no offense here, just the cute and lovely Micky mice from India and China) on the same chart. Now, if there are more mice than elephants, just like the human population density varies according to region (think of hundreds of millions of Chinease and Indian people and just a few tens of millions of Northern Europeans), then the chart will be inadequate. It's almost as if one would assemble a chart of the lengths of all children in the school, starting from grade 1 and ending with highschool, but adding a few kindergardens in the same data set.

end of article confusion

but penis circumference and broken condoms were strongly correlated, with larger sizes increasing the rate of breakage.

Larger penis sizes, or larger condom sizes? --24.79.238.235 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

haw do u now wut kind of condom to use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.184.56 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of Average length for Pakistan at the website referenced? Please delete it .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.95.113 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From OLD discussion: Biological Reasons

What happened to the old discussion for this page? In 2004 I observed that this article does not address any evolutionary factors that may contribute to penis size in humans, and that is still true today, yet my comment has disappeared.

Talk page from 2004 Dec 10

I thought it was standard practice not to delete discussion material, but to sometimes archive it. I still think evolutionary factors would be a valuable addition to the page, but I do not have the cites to add anything useful. --Elijah (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, due to your comment, that someone deleted the links to the archives again. Restored them. Wits (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Penis Pics

the both penis pictures dont really represent a larger penis. both picture look below average in size. especially the first one which looks considerably lower than average. ~unsigned poster

If you mean the picture comparing two penises on article page, I think it's meant to show there are differing sizes. Not to "represent a larger penis". It's not trying to show two larger penises.

With that said, 1st penis looks to be on the lower side of the average range (I'd guess around 5") and the latter penis on the higher side (I'd guess around 7"). I'm not sure though if the angle and positioning of the pics is distorting my perspective. Some distinguishing features I see is that the 1st penis has a skin bridge from glans, while the 2nd has a moderate n-curve. Wits (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Here we go with the "my huge penis" claims again. My penis is dead average in length and girth. It looks almost identical to the first penis pictured. The second one is well above average. Please stop polluting the talk page with allusions to how huge your penis is, true or not. Thanks. Rotundo (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody made any claims about their penis size (neither I or 1st poster). Please don't make bad faith assumptions. Wits (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your comment was totally fine. The 1st poster made no direct claim, but rather took the common tactic of saying "looks small to me" when seeing an average size penis. It's just a roundabout way to claim they have a larger than average penis. It's tiresome, like when someone comments "wow, those tits are small" when seeing a picture of a girl with dead-average B cups. Apparently I'm easily annoyed by exaggerated sexual ideals. Feel free to delete this comment and my previous one. Rotundo (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. I assumed you were referring to 1st poster, but mentioned myself to cover all bases. Yeah, I know what you mean. It's possible poster was implying that ("wow, that looks small because I'm so much bigger" sic), but he/she could possibly just be misinformed. We have no way of knowing for certain. Your annoyance is understandable though given how prevalent that attitude is. Wits (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that darker penis is tiny. It's like what 9 inches. That's tiny. I mean I don't know from personal experience because I'm straight and have never seen another man's penis, and my penis is 5 inches - but that's tiny. Anyway. Encyclopedia...

Penis Resources credibility

The website cited uses a "doctor" who appears to have no publications in peer reviewed journals, nor association with any established medical or educational facilities. The "doctor" also seems to provide sources that do not exist and/or have no way to be verified. Furthermore the information provided conflicts greatly with other sections of this page. I suggest the entire paragraph be removed. --Davemarshall04 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading penis size comparison image in the article

The darker penis is apparently bigger than the whiter penis. Whoever put that picture there, it's obviously meant to propagate the myth that blacks are bigger. Is this a fucking propagandapedia or what? I don't think that white dick even reaches the average size. Whoever put that picture obviously had motives other than education in mind. Either put two penises of the same color there, or find a white penis that is equal in size to the darker one. Idiots. So much bullshit propaganda went on here (probably by the blacks) that the article is semi-protected now.--24.188.136.219 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As a white male with a penis size that is average length and girth (as compared to the studies done in the article) I can conclusively say that the photograph of the white penis is indeed average size. It looks about the same as mine. The darker penis is notably larger than average, but I take no offense at it: they are just showing the size variation among human penises. I don't see the need to get all politically correct and worry that people might draw the wrong conclusions if they see a bigger dark penis. Besides, it's fairly well recognized (outside the labs and articles of nervous white scientists and reporters) that blacks have slightly larger penises on average. If that bothers you, you should probably find something better to do with your spare time. Rotundo (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Take your "fairly well recognized opinion" and shove it. Wikipedia is no place for "fairly well recognized" notions. It's a place for facts. And the fact is, numerous studies have proven that the only significant difference in penis size between white and black men is in flaccid state. Putting a below-average white penis together with an above-average black penis is not a comparison as much as it is a propaganda aimed at driving the point home that blacks are that much bigger than whites. Are you seriously trying to tell me that one can't find an above-average white penis on the net for comparison? If you do, this discussion is over and I don't want to waste any more of my time on you.--24.188.136.219 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your just causing trouble were its not needed. It's really not suggesting anything. No big dude, stop looking for stereyotypes. If it really were a problem, you woulden't have been the only one to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.4.37 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to get so worked up about it. It's a picture of two penises and drawing any broad conclusions from that is kind of ridiculous on your part. Also, I didn't say anything about "opinion". It's a fact: look at the Kinsey data, which is still the most exhaustive study -- black men have a very slight size advantage over white men on average. It's something like .1 inches in length and girth. It's not particularly significant, but it's something you just have to accept, whether it offends your personal dignity or not. In any case, the photo was fine and it is pretty pitiful that people were getting so worked up about it. Now it's removed and that's fine too. But please, grow up.

I saw it also, its bullcrap and needs to be changed, thats why my 14 year old son laughs whenever I say I read it on wiki. He says wiki is a joke and his teachers tell him to never use it. I see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what the issue is with this photo. The truth of the matter is that some men are noticably larger than others. The fact that one penis is white and one is darker (can't really confirm the ethnicity) has nothing to do with the point of the photo. The photo shows a smaller (average?) penis in flaccid and erect states next to a larger penis in flaccid and erect states. The erection angles are different as well, another thing the photo is meant to show. Most people realize the photo is not a black vs white photo -- it's just two penises that happen to be different sizes and have photos taken from a similar perspective, which is why it pertains well to this particular article.

I think it would be much easier to just find pictures of two different penises that are more similar in color while keeping the size differences obvious. It would not be hard to find and would end any confusion and controversy. (Usafddh (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Find a small black penis, and I will let you put it up, I challenge you ;) Lol, you white guys are pathetic, I can't believe my dad is one, or that my mum, a white too, spent most of her life only having small penis. Fact of the matter is, once you've had black you really can't go back honey! ;) And these black guys have no problem sharing themselves with many many women, and their sexual prowess is incredible! Twelve times a day, you find me a white guy who can do that and I will swear of blacks forever (not really though lol!)! Whereas you white guys will only commit to one, probably because your dicks are so small or something stupid like that. Give up white boy, you can't compete against the huge black elephant monster dick ;)58.107.178.216 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) This guy is an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Must be the same immature idiot as above.Sad.(white guy again)this is an encyclopedia!!!! not a porn forum!!! i've measured 8.5 in. before (being 6'7" helps i suppose)i've given women orgasms with just my glans. do you know what that is? horses have huge cocks also,but women have told me they have poor conversation skills!!! 68.155.171.148 (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

enlargement through just surgeries?

i believed there are just more methods available than just a surgery. someone with good medical background or having received formal medical educations should add more details on such sub-topic. i read the forum from the yahoo web site saying there are pills, hardware and so on available for the enlargements. also, some safety recommendations should be included, making the article most comprehensive as possible.

i would act instead of just talking, but i don't even have medical background. so, it's just not ethical for such wikipedian to do so because i'm talking about a man's life here; a man's dignity. though my first apology to you if some of you think dignity comes first.
Xmlv (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OR

A while ago, I brought one paragraph into accord with the source (see [2]). Since then, my edit was reverted without explanation. In my opinion, a few of the sources in the Race and penis size section are unreliable. For example, in the "research" by Dr. Gomez de Diego, the comparison is based on a number of different studies with potentially different methodologies. This paragraph needs to be either better referenced, or deleted. silly rabbit (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Percentile?

A quote from the current article: "64 percent cared strongly or moderately about penis width and 54 percent cared about penis length" - this equates to 118% which is only possible if you live in another dimension. In this dimension there are a total possibility of 100%.71.112.198.228 (talk)

No, it's fine. There are two different questions - "Do you care about length?" and "Do you care about girth?" Not "Do you prefer about length or girth?" George The Dragon (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if, in accordance with the page to which the graphs were sourced, 0.1% of applicants were from 8.5 to 8.75 inches in length, and the same with 8.75 to 9, and there were 300 tested participants (an eerily convenient number which allows you to say that exactly 25% of participants couldn't get it up, or suspiciously close), wouldn't that mean that, of the three hundred tested, one third of a single person had an 8.5-8.75 inch long penis and the same number had 8.75 to 9? Also, when I looked at the "science portion" of this page, it insinuated that not even porn stars got up to eight inches long. Why then does the survey say that several people in a group of three-hundred measured up to that? I'm pretty sure there are more than 100 porn actors on Earth... Tsetses (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article

There is a problem with the Dr. Gomez de Diego paragraph. The research from the link and the information posted on this site are wrong. The statistics and the countries don't match up the same. Barai85 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo

(1) Here is commons gallery about Human penis size. (2) Image:Mercury god.jpg - this image can be use here. (3) Limited growth of the penis occurs between birth and 5 years of age - I can`t agree, look here - from 3.65 (newborn) to 6.02 cm (five years boy) - it is not a limited growth. Louve pl (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Penile rigidity

I have read around and there seems to be a story that asian penises are hard compared to white penises. Any research on this been trying to find some.YVNP (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually if you cant find evidence for something, it means that there is none.Fitz05 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

5" typical girth??

From article: While results vary across studies, the consensus is that the average human penis is approximately 12.9–15 cm (5.1–5.9 in) in length with a 95% confidence interval of (10.7 cm, 19.1 cm) (or, equivalently, 4.23 in, 7.53 in).[7][8][9] The typical girth or circumference is approximately 12.3 cm (4.85 in) when fully erect.

I have hard time comprehending that an average penis is 5" long and 5" wide. Frankly, I have hard time imagining a 5" wide penis in any case.

5" AROUND not wide

5" Around, that would make it approx 1.6" across. Still a ridiculous number! Someone with editing privs please change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.93.154 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, 5" circumference (approx 1.6" diameter) is a commonly cited number, and this definitely seems normal to me from personal experience. 68.222.61.223 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, from what I've read 5" around (1.6" thick) is the average girth of a normal human penis. From the studies I've read most penises can be found in the 4" - 6" girth range (1.27" - 1.9" thick). Lord Balin (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of false research by "doctor"

The paragraph comparing penis sizes by nationality has been removed. The research was conducted by "doctor" "Gomez de diego" who does not exist at all let alone mentioned in any medical publications . His "work" is certainly not widespread and is only cited by webpages promoting penis enlargement products and all the sources linked to the paragraph lead to such pages. Some of the links do not work at all. Just google Dr. Gomez de diego and you will see only one page of penis enlargement websites mentioning his name and the search results then exhibit no mention of his existence. Pc911 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Penis Resources credibility

The website cited uses a "doctor" who appears to have no publications in peer reviewed journals, nor association with any established medical or educational facilities. The "doctor" also seems to provide sources that do not exist and/or have no way to be verified. Furthermore the information provided conflicts greatly with other sections of this page. I suggest the entire paragraph be removed. --Davemarshall04 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced article in external links

"Chinese men do measure up" has no links to an actual article. It is unverified and should probably be removed. The article was on Reuters but I forgot to link it and I can no longer find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameed (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

width vs girth?

I found the details about circumference, both here and in Penis, to be a bit less useful than similar information regarding width would be. I have no problem dividing or multiplying by pi, but I imagine that most people cannot say the same. From most perspectives the width of the penis is far more evident than its circumference. Yes, I know that the penis is not a perfect cylinder, but would it be inappropriate to append an approximate diameter to the section regarding average circumference? 68.209.17.252 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Site suggestion

Since this page is semi-protected, I would like to suggest a site for the links section: www.howlongisyours.com. This site is conducting an ongoing penis size survey. The survey results are always contrasted with external data. Judging from the comments of our users, I believe this site is a valid resource for anybody concerned with their penis' size. We think of our site as a fun way to address penis-related issues in a non-dscriminatory setup. We do not sell, promote or endorse any penis enlargement gimmicks.--Djdickjohnson (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest including it. It's not really a reference sort of EL, for more information on human penis size, by the looks of it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Race and penis size

The Kinsey reports also found that homosexual men reported larger penises than heterosexual men, which underscores the questionability of these studies and self-reported survey methods.

Could an "established" user edit this part for me to be:

The Kinsey reports also found that homosexual men reported larger penises than heterosexual men, which the reports claimed underscores the questionability of these studies and self-reported survey methods; However according to studies in prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, there have been studies linking particular hormones in the womb that predispose unborn male fetuses to both homosexuality and at the same time larger penis size

....not "which underscores the questionability" but "which the reports underscores the questionability" and the aforementioned evidence that gay men do in fact have larger penises. 67.5.147.10 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PICTURE IS RACIST

The picture needs to show ONE penis, not a smaller white one and then a larger black one below it. Clearly anyone who has seen porn knows this is not always the case about race/penis size, and has no place on wiki.

i agree, overly conscious cathloc man, what if there had been children around

But, actually, this is pretty inappropriate

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED Leujohn ^(talk) 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in Erect Circumference

Article states 12.6 cm (5.0 inches) one of these figures must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.179.171 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

{{editsemiprotected}} The second [citation needed] in the paragraph "Popular culture" that reference to "The second study found statistically significant although "weak" correlation between the size of the stretched penis and foot size and height." can be replaced with this link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/j62g2g4782873082/

--Denkels (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Leujohn ^(talk) 12:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Leujohn ^(talk) 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD for this Page

This page has been nominated in an AfD. If you have any concerns or opinions to put foward to either side of the deletion discussion, please feel free to do so. Thanks, --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 07:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep due to a misdirected nomination which doesn't have a specific reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 07:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proper measurement methods

I noticed it says only measuring at the top is accurate. Is it also acceptable to measure at the side as well? It doesn't say in the link. In fact the link doesn't really say anything else. YVNP (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bone Pressing

As it stands, the page doesn't mention bone pressing at all. This leaves the the measuring section a bit ambiguous as to whether to bone press or not. As for whether doing so is appropriate, does anyone know if any of the listed studies bone pressed? Mr. Average seems to imply that the Lifestyles study does; it uses the data from that study while instructing users to bone press while measuring themselves. 99.246.238.150 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Race and penis size 2

This section seems intent on selecting only information that attempts to fit everything into John Philippe Rushton's Asian < White < African framework. Why, for example, is there no mention for example of the Master & Johnson study which suggested whites had the largest erect length? Nevermind that the Kinsey study cited by the WHO had more than 2,500 white male respondents, but only 59 black males. Further, the reports were based on subjective, self-reported results. All the studies I've seen have serious flaws, either all remotely credible information should be presented or none, not just whatever fits the existing stereotype. 207.112.94.194 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A more important question maybe whether or not it should even be included at all. Every study I have seen seems to contradict each other so I can not see how anyone can find that reliable. Not to mention that the results from these studies vary widely from each other; for example, one study finds one race with an average of 5.5 inches in one study and another will find the same race to be 6.3 inches. There is not one study that is widely or even scientifically accepted. Based on that, it should not even have its own section Bipartisan185 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Masters and Johnson are dead scientists no longer in work. Just like we don't use crime statistics from 1890 we don't use outdated studies. I say we put Kinsey and Johnson in a history section and use modern studies(like the condom ones). YVNP (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't put to much emphasis on this section considering this article is about human penis size and not race and penis size. At one point, this was one of the largest sections in the article which is absurd given the lack of credibility of the research. Even the modern ones are not accepted by the scientific community and have shown varying results from each other. It would appear all have been inconclusive since the results differ. Bipartisan185 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there have been studies done, but there has been no official scientific study that is published and accepted by the scientific community. Both the FHI which was inconclusive on race and the WHO study that did found differences have been rejected by the scientific community based on the above issues. The official stance as far I can tell is that there is no true answer because no conclusive study that is without flaws has been doneTheLou75 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia holds a higher standard for this topic and any article regarding biology or any other scientific study. As a result, sources must meet the following guidelines:

• Scientific journals as primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed.

• Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but often there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, textbooks, major up-to-date reference works such as medical dictionaries or scientific encyclopedias, and some forms of monographs.

Unfortunately, the source is not not published in any scientific journal and there is no scientific consenus and it is not academically peer reviewed with approval.

Additionally, for the scientifc journals, Wikipedia states the following:

• Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report what is in the opinion of the editors unimportant or questionable research. In particular be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed, or one that reports material in a field different from its usual focus.

Finally, Wikipedia states that "There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer" which may be the case for this topic, in which case we would omit it. Some editors have made the suggestion to delete this topic from the article and they may very well have a strong case being that there is no scientific consensus on the issue which is critical considering the issue. Althougth I did edit back in the summary of the section, I would not opposed if someone were to remove it and the section entirely as it fails to meet the above Wikipedia guidelines with the scientific consensus issue being the most important. TheLou75 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Condom studies should be treated as reliable sources that demonstrate notability, in lieu of peer reviewed literature, if it is lacking, in my opinion. TheLou75 could you link me to where you put together that "regarding biology...sources must meet the following guidelines" (italics added). Appears overly strict on a first reading. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shootbamboo! The guidlines can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine Also, the reason that condom studies can not be considered a reliable source is because it lacks the requirements of a scientific study (and their main focus was not about race and penis size), in this case penis size. Such a study based on current scientific procedures would require the study of the penis itself and not condom size. Sorry for being overly black and white, but as a grad assistant, I take the formal defintion of these things seriously. With that being said, scientific and/or medical journals that are peer reviewed are needed; a condom study that lacks peer review and approval would not meet wikipedia's guidelines as a reliable source concerning this topic. Additionally, the topic at hand lacks a scientific consensus which is a major issue and all scientific topics need to have a scientific consenus. However, the scientific (and medical community) have been quiet on this matter and have not offered a generally accepted opinion.We have to remember that Wikipedia holds scientific and medical topics to a higher standard and this must meet this standard in order to be included. TheLou75 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You should probably also mention that self reported surverys such as the condom studies fail the reliability guidelines and is by no means scientific. Bipartisan185 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Family Health International is a VERY reliable sources, and so is the World Health Organizations. There are many efficient studies regarding race and penis size conducted by organizations, and they all seem to have generally the same results. All of the studies cited and conducted by both organizations are perfectly valid and is legitimate information. These particular studies WERE in fact studies about race and penis size did measure penis size AND used condoms in their studies as well. But, it's hypocritical to say that you believe the sources are not reliable, but yet want to use their information in a summary (and at that a summary that isn't at all an accurate reflection of the referenced information, since the information pointed to men of African having a larger penis size on average, followed by Caucasian men, then Asian men, not "insignificant" like the summary says). Now since this particular sub-topic isn't a necessary one and the article would fair just fine without it, it can be removed all together. But if there is going to be a sub-topic about race and penis size then the information might as well be there, not censored. - Tailan All (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the section and re-reading wikipedia guidelines, this section should be removed and should have been removed a long time ago. Talian- I agree it is hypocritical and unneccessary so I'm removing this section until a scientific consenus is reached and it can be included back when or if this is done. I think that reasonable and it looks like we both agree on that.Bipartisan185 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Following the standards of related articles, I agree. TheLou75 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

not sure about this.....

Just read this out of curiosity and found this sentence at the end of the size survey part; "(but the sample is more representative of male American college students visiting Cancun, and eager to have their penises measured, than it is of the entire male American population.)"

I get what the sentence is trying to say, and it may very well be a valid point, but I really don't think its very encyclopedic, and kinda seems like a non neutral sentence....

Yeah I agree, awkward sentence for an encyclopedia. It also seems non-neutral that this *possible* (but not proven) sample bias is emphasized for the Cancun study, while *possible* sample biases are not emphasized for the other studies. As if this study is being singled out for debunking... Wits (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Penis Size

Nothing in life can be understood except in terms of evolution. Such is the case of the human penis and testes. It is remarkable that this article does not contain anything about one of our most remarkable traits among mammals - relatively we have the largest penis. Amongst our closest relatives we stand out - the length of the erect penis averages 1.25 inches in gorillas, 1.5 inches in an orangutan and 3 inches in a chimp. As Jared Diamond noted in his treatise The Third Chimpanzee, one of the most glaring failures of 20th century science was to formulate an "adequate Theory of Penis Length". Most research has suggested it is a display feature, and most presumed it was for females however this has not withstood scrutiny. Diamond concludes that "While we can agree that the human penis is an organ of display, the display is intended not for women but for fellow men. Other facts confirm the role of a large penis as a threat or status display toward other men." Such an evolutionary understanding could dispel much of the myths that have been perpetuated and the foolish ads that appeal to male insecurity. Without a biological background this Wiki article falls woefully short of explaining this subject.

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

4 in is not 8.5 cm

In the section "Penis size and female genital response", it's written that 4 in equal 8.5 cm. This is simply false, as 1 in = 2.54 cm, and 4 * 2.54 = 10.16 cm. Interestingly, the article from which the information is gotten, has also made the same mistake, but that does not change math and measurement conventions. I would have fixed the mistake myself if I could edit the article, but I can't. --90.154.212.42 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is black the race viewed of as being the biggest?

I am a white male, skinny to smallish body, with a huge penis that is the length of a large shampoo bottle by suave. Why is it always about black people? White people are big guys as well. I have a half black half white roommate and I saw his penis when he flashed it in front of our friends while he was drunk and mine was definitely longer! Looking at my body size, I know there are white guys that are big like me out there in the penis, so please don't write the article with any views towards race.