Talk:Human penis size

Archives

• Archive 1: January 2004-December 2005 (one comment from Jan 2006)

Ludwig Wolf, who made a study of the physical anthropology of the Baluba tribe, remarks that 'As a general rule the male organ in its relaxed state is astonishingly strongly developed;' but he was informed by Negresses who had cohabited with both Negrids and Europids that, when erect, the organ is of about the same size in the two races. Topinard had claimed that though the penis of Europeans was smaller than that of Negrids when flaccid, it was larger than theirs when erect.

Article too sympathetic

This article is way to sympathetic. I've noticed in the number of years of googling this question that the average keeps dropping. First you get studies that say 6'4" is the average, this is then dropped to 6'2"(Kinsey), then there is the generally accepted 6" amongst men journals(men's health mag). In most medical journals or websites answering questions about sexuality, growth and STD's they've dropped this figure to 5.5-7" range(ask alice). Im believing there is an incentive to make studies fall short of the actual range, and no offense to the Mexican studies but their racial penis size falls short of the typical European/American.

• • • I think the above poster means 6.2" etc, rather than 6'2"; A penis over six foot long would be quite something. Saccerzd 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I saw one this morning. It was sitting in a black and white Ford Crown Victoria and it had a radar gun.

On the contrary, the best run experiments seem to find that the number comes out smaller. That seems to point to the smaller number being more accurate.WolfKeeper 15:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

oh yes heres Lifestyle's measurings in detail which is accurate because the idea was to work out condom sizes.

The Lifestyles study in detail.

Length % of men (percentile)

3.50" to 3.75" 0.2 % (0.2%)

3.75" to 4.00" 0.3 % (0.5%)

4.00" to 4.25" 0.2 % (0.7%)

4.25" to 4.50" 0.7 % (1.4%)

4.50" to 4.75" 0.8 % (2.2%)

4.75" to 5.00" 2.0 % (4.2%)

5.00" to 5.25" 9.0 % (13.2%)

5.25" to 5.50" 10.8 % (24%)

5.50" to 5.75" 24.3 % (48.3%)

5.75" to 6.00" 23.9 % (72.2%)

6.00" to 6.25" 9.3 % (81.5%)

6.25" to 6.50" 6.7 % (88.2%)

6.50" to 6.75" 4.4 % (92.6%)

6.75" to 7.00" 2.9 % (95.5%)

7.00" to 7.25" 1.0 % (96.5%)

7.25" to 7.50" 1.0 % (97.5%)

7.50" to 7.75" 0.9 % (98.4%)

7.75" to 8.00" 0.8 % (99.3%)

8.00" to 8.25" 0.3 % (99.6%)

8.25" to 8.50" 0.3 % (99.8%)

8.50" to 8.75" 0.1 % (99.9%)

8.75" to 9.00" 0.1 % (100%)

Circumference % of men

Under 3.00" 3.3 % (3.3%)

3.00" to 3.25" 0.4 % (3.7%)

3.25" to 3.50" 0.9 % (4.6%)

3.50" to 3.75" 1.1 % (5.7%)

3.75" to 4.00" 4.7 % (10.4%)

4.00" to 4.25" 6.3 % (16.7%)

4.25" to 4.50" 17.1 % (33.8%)

4.50" to 4.75" 11.7 % (45.5%)

4.75" to 5.00" 24.1 % (69.6%)

5.00" to 5.25" 9.9 % (79.5%)

5.25" to 5.50" 11.5 % (91.0%)

5.50" to 5.75" 3.0 % (95.0%)

5.75" to 6.00" 3.9 % (98.9%)

6.00" to 6.25" 0.5 % (99.4%)

6.25" to 6.50" 0.5 % (99.9%)

6.50" to 6.75 0.1 % (100%)

--Raddicks 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree with Raddicks. Out of sheer boredom, I spent several hours searching the Internet, and in nearly all cases, the average size is stated to be in the six-inch range, whereas this article makes it appear more like five, simply due to the number of figures cited that fit that range. Also, the actual ability of average-to-small penises to satisfy different types of women when compared with more substantial ones is not discussed at all in the article. This needs to be improved. -Anonymous

The issue of size and female satisfaction has been addressed. Please see Penis size and Vaginal Stimulation.

ON FEMALE SATISFACTION

Sorry, but as a female having done considerable lay research (physical and reading) NO THE FEMALE SATISFACTION ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED even close to satisfactorily. The fact is that WOMEN CONSISTENTLY LIE to make their men feel better about themselves. The real facts are that NO MORE THAN 30% of women have experienced vaginal orgasm and I put to you that it is indeed related to size (ok some due to method as well) but size (girth and length) is an important component. Women such as myself have been mislead for decades if not centuries into believing that not having vaginal orgasms was medically NORMAL because it is statistically COMMON (normal). Let me notify you ladies that you do not need to accept a life without vaginal orgasm unless you want to. But ladies, please stop spreading the falsehood that you are satisfied. Yes you may be satisfied by your man's behaviour, attitude, and fatherly talents, if you aren't experiencing vaginal orgasms HE IS NOT SATISFYING YOU... not in that respect. That would be like a guy who only ejaculates after hand/blow jobs instead of vaginal intercourse saying he's "satisfied" by his wife's vagina, I doubt that would fly!!! I came to this realisation following an internet article that may indeed be sponsored by penis enlargement money, may indeed be skewing numbers in their favor. BUT ONE FACT REMAINS, MOST WOMEN ARE NOT HAVING VAGINAL ORGASMS, that is an undisputed truth. And from my personal experience and from ladies around me, size (girth & length) does matter. Now please don't go on about how "sometimes big is too big" of course, crikey, we're talking averages here NOT extremes!!!! And to the scientists out there, please stop listening to opinions such as "my husband's size is just fine" from ladies having known only a couple of men in their life. Until you've had bigger, you DON'T KNOW what big or small is! Experience is everything. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO SERIOUSLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF FEMALE LACK OF VAGINAL ORGASM. Ladies: 5-6" length with Mars Bar girth (4") simply won't do it, if that's the average man, no wonder so many of us have been lacking in pleasure!! I realise I have not given you references as most of this edit is a matter of opinion, except for percentages of non vaginal orgasms. Innumerable studies have demonstrated that the number varies between 25% and 35%. --Tallard 08:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear !!!!!!! Hiyahiyahiya 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The internet is not the best source for data on average penis size. There are a lot of sites supported by the penis enlargement industry, which has a clear motive to inflate the average as much as possible. Numbers from the internet are also more likely to come from internet polls, which are self-reported, which usually adds at least half an inch to the average. Based on my research (which I don't claim to be any good), I'd bet that the average is around 6 on a good day, and closer to 5 when measuring flaccid-stretched, by-a-doctor-so-not-quite-fully-erect, and/or non-bone-pressed. ^L_Wizard @ 09:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The above data that Raddicks himself inserted gives an average length of 5.75 and girth of just over 4.75. And that's the *average* size. That's not 5.5-7 that's about 90% of men between 4.75 to 6.75.WolfKeeper 09:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It happens that the subject here has been one I've made a study of since high school (I'm seventy). Originally, my reasons may have been the obvious ones, but that changed when I realized that sex - one of the most basic of human behaviots and motivators, could tell a psychologist and sociologist a great deal about what to expect from other kinds of research, news reporting, public opinion, and the like. There seems to be nothing that human beings fear more than truth - and therefore, thought itself.

While I never abated my curiosity about human sexual behavior, mores related, and things related to sex generally, several times I had occasion to intensify my study. Once was a time I worked as a policeman, and attended both FBI and state law enforment academies. Having become acquainted with several prostitutes and aware of the source of information they represented, I asked them a number of questions which relate to the subject here. As I've said elsewhere here (Wikipedia), it has always amazed me to hear supposed and purported experts say that male penis size doesn't matter. Unless one is prepared to argue that varied positions during sex (the Japanese Shijuhatte - Kama Sutra) are disinteresting to women, it is obvious that since a number of positions require a long and hard cock, size matters.

Size contraints what they are here, let me offer what I have learned about the subject. My friends who are prostitutes, together with the number who have been referred by my friends (sixty four, in all, and divided equally among Afro, Caucasion, and oriental - four less than equal, in this respect) ALL tell me that the biggest penis they've seen was that of a Caucasion. They are agreed (eighty-one percent), though, that no real difference exists in cock size where black men and white; Oriental men, on the other hand, are not generally (there were exceptions in the recollections of four women) so well endowed. The question of endurance was another matter entirely. Ninety percent of the pros said that Caucasian males were better lovers where endurance was concerned, and of the ninety percent, ninety-one percent said that endurance was the most important male attribute where sex was the question.

It happens, too, that I have had sex with something around three hundred women. Among these twenty or so (still my good friends, by the way - enough to tell me the truth) say they've had sex with as many as forty men. Four are Afro-American, nine, Oriental, the rest Caucasian. All - that's without exception - agree with their professional sisters concerning what I reported above here. It happens that with small skewing, their experience where race is concerned is fairly close to national proportions. Using forty as the standard number, the girls said that of their forty they had enjoyed sex with six black guys, and two Orientals.

All of the women I know (and have been able to ask the questions relative here) agree that skill - especially that having to do with sexual positions - is critical to a man's sexual prowess with women.

One other thing: for a time - long enough for the fact to have become apparent in my society back home - I devoted most of my efforts toward younger (much, in most instance college-age) women. What I learned, however, was that sex being a physical activity that like any other requires practice in order to acquire skill, young women - the collage age that sexual behavior surveys always seem to involve - aren't very good at sex. They aren't really full participants, in other words. The point illustrates the tendency for surveys and opinons otherwise to be biased by the human tendency to believe one wants to believe, and to avoid thought on the subject. The U.S. worships (I use the word advisedly - its religious in nature) youth. Thought, on the other hand, is ruthlessly inconsiderate of race, gender, and all the other things to which human beings relate so irrevocably. Thought would much sooner have the opinion of someone more likely to have experience (which would you prefer for your surgery, a surgeon just out of medical school, or one of twenty years practice?).

The subject of sex is very similar to any other done by human beings. You can learn a lot about you country, its politics, and the rest from it.

Oriental < White < Black

If you measure many things on many blacks, whites, and orientals many of those things will show whites in the middle and blacks and orientals at each end. Understand I'm talking average measurements made by experts on clearly identified racial types. Understand everyone is a mixture, but clearly some have more european genes, some more china-area genes, some more south of the sahara genes. Understand the variation within any of these groups is far larger than the variation between any of these three groups. Understand there exist groupings other than this one that are equally valid (and invalid) in racially segmenting humans. Having said that, oriental babies are smallest, walk latest. Orientals score highest on white-made IQ tests. Orientals have the smallest penis. Blacks are at the other end of the spectrum on ALL these, with whites in the middle. THATS THE FACT JACK.

All things black are bigger?
Not so according to this very neutral height/weight website: Black Men's Height Chart White Men's Height Chart
For white guys: 50 %ile is 178 cm, 75 %ile is 182 cm, 95 %ile is 190 cm
For black guys: 50 %ile is 177 cm, 75 %ile is 182 cm, 95 %ile is 189cm
However, I have read somewhere that evolutionary selection may have affected human penis size according to female promiscuity, hence larger penis size "could" have been a result of selection, kinda like "wood" size (pardon the pun) on ongulates can vary beyond body size. The article I can't seem to find mentioned that in the context of sperm competition for insemination, sperm deposited deeper had a head start (sorry LOL) so that in societies with more female promiscuity, sperm competition can be a evolutionary factor. --Tallard 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a source for your claim about average penis size, feel free to add it to the article. Several studies are already mentioned, but they are contradictory and inconclusive, so more studies are needed. Tuf-Kat 01:02, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Whether JACK knows it or not, Phillipe Rushton's book already cited in the article is the major source within the last few decades for all of the claims in the paragraph above. alteripse 02:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Mr. JACK makes blacks seem as if they are genetically inferior intelligence wise to other races. Well, this may be a bit off topic but Mr. JACK before slave and the kidnapping of blacks happened do you know what Africa was? It was just as bad as it is now. (White Europeans, Asians, Indians and Arabs were able to conquer the entire world because of their higher intelligence.) Empires in Arab North Africa by the name of Kush where they had a royalty and wealth beyond imagination. (He is just kidding, if they were so smart we would have invented clothes and not been running around like bloddy baboons.) They were some of the smartest scholars in the world and they were all Arab. Africa was rich, full of gold, prosperity, and then it all fell when the Persian army heard of their gold, books, wealth and invaded them. Gold became a standard of money and was sought afterwards as well. Blacks were then sold on slave ships by other blacks and the rest is history. Before you begin attacking a group you need to have proof to back up your claims. Go look up Timbuktu yourself (this guy uses one North african city that was in fact run by Arabs (the first civilizers)) and you will see it was a place of wealth and knowledge. You said your theory was a FACT, yet facts are undistupable, undeniable, however, your theory has holes. You cannot cheapen down any race by generalizing them by that nature. Being smart doesn't(tests show otherwise, I mean you write like a child) come from genetics, it comes from environment and opportunity (yes, that is why Norwegians and Chinese in the world's harshest climates have built up super societies). Regardless, your facts are all out of whack. -Mag

 One Question? If they were so smart, why were they helpless against all other peoples?
         *Perhaps this question should be moved elsewhere due to it being irrevalent to the article here, but I would like to see sources 
          for your claims...    unless the Persian army stole that as well. -Martin

Here are the facts on IQ:

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

etc. Taken from here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamadasll (talk • contribs) 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I DON'T BELIEVE I READ ANYTHING AS INANE & WORTHLESS AS THIS. I GUESS IF ONE IS CAUCASIAN THEY HAD BETTER HEAR THEY ARE THE MOST INTELLIGENT SINCE THEIR PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES ARE LACKING. ANY SUPPOSED STUDY WOULD BE LACKING, YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR INTELLIGENCE THIS WAY. TO HAVE IT HERE, OSTENSIBLY WITH AN ARTICLE ABOUT PENILE SIZE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. FOR MARTIN TO END WITH THE SARCASTIC REMARK HE DID LEADS ME TO BELIEVE HE IS LESS INTERESTED IN "FACT" WHEN WEIGHED AGAINST HIS PERSONAL BIASES. TOOL. user:216.179.34.114

• • See comment below. Rushton's article is not a study of penis size - it is an attempt to correlate penis size with behavior. -Willmcw 21:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I don't remember exactly where I heard it, (or indeed if I've made it up, it was some time ago) but; Durex condoms, 'normal size' has a slightly smaller circumfrence for condoms sold in the far east compared to the Europe/America version. Is there anyone who works for Durex around here?

• • I believe you must have got this from "Race, evolution, and behavior: A life-history perspective" by J. Philippe Rushton. He mentions that apparently the WHO issues free contraceptives of different sizes for some different continents. But I'd read peoples criticisms of his work first before believing anything he claims.

• I'm fairly new to this site, but it seems relevant and I'll post it here. I object to the statement "This study neglects to take into account height and weight, which may be the primary indicator of penis size." What is this based on? I've heard and read many testimonies that this is not true. Penis size is not related to height because it isn't bone. If you're going to deflect the possible racial element, it should be some other factors backed by evidence. Maybe it's the climate, for instance. As it is that statement is based on a myth.

If you ever get to spend time in a US prison you will learn in a very painful way from the behind that black people indeed have much longer erect members than do whites, latins or asians. It is a matter of fact.

I believe this must be true, but I would rather use "yellow" instead of "oriental", since it's talking about colors. Also forgot about the "reds" and "browns". I think user:Alteripse could have stopped in the title, but I won't get into this because I don't know how much people get offended about skin classification names in english. It's an intersting discussion subject regardless.

Anyway, what does that have to do with IQ or EQ? Elephants got the biggest penis, they're not the smartest in the planet, not even smartest mammals or maybe any classification at all. If we conclude that old people have the biggest ears, does that show they're also the wisest? I personally consider a bad thing ending up in a retirement homes... How wise would someone who ends up in a place nobody wants to go be? I'm not saying elderly are not wise, just trying to state a point that being larger or smaller, or different color doesn't prove anything beside that fact itself. I almost can't believe I'm writing this in a place full of information like wikipedia is. Probably most of you know all that by now, or maybe I'm being very delusional again.

--caue 05:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe black people having huge penis' is God's form of affirmative action. It's certainly alot better than anything man could create! 65.138.68.50 16:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Man created most of Pam Anderson. --Macarion 00:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratio-nal

"Penis size is not related to height because it isn't bone", so Ears should also not be related to height and weight, right? Specially not to face size, right? Oh, and face size is not related to body size, probably true?

Any study of human body will show that everything is related. Size and mass does count on that relational harmony. And that does not exclude penis or any other part of it. It is important to notice that there is a part of the penis that is inside, hidden. And that's mostly what makes the difference of sizes among men. I could even bet that the human's unconcious mind can control that, so if you raise a kid telling him he has a small penis, so he will, and vice-versa. I'm just wondering how many studies take all that in consideration, because humans aren't that easy to grab data from... We have this little thing called envy and we usually use tricks too look good. It's only my opinion it makes us look usually worst than we really are.

I'm no expert in any area of medicine, but I do know a lot about a lot of things. English isn't one of them. I think probably, just like most of our "external looking" balance that we can study in arts (since the Greeks, 29 centuries ago or maybe even older), the size is also related to the golden ratio.

--caue 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

yes indeed, the Phi (the golden ratio) is probably related. What I was told (and later turted out to be true for me) is that the size of a fully erected penis, from tip to base is the same size of the index finger, from tip to thumb when making a 90 degrees angle between the thumb and the index finger. It is a much simpler way to measure it.... Nefzen 20:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Metric of the penis-time continuum

Would all of you please cover you manhood with the sacred banner of SI? It is really shameful that the entire article is full of imperial customary units. Wikipedia is an ecyclopaedia and thus for all mankind and the overwhelming majority of the 6.5 billion people on Earth think metric when it comes to the caliber of their artillery piece.

I just came across this article and I was also irritated that it doesn't use metric units; it should indeed be converted into SI. EnemyOfTheState 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese is (still) the language spoken by most of those 6.5 billion. Following your argumentation, the article should really be in Chinese. But seriously: This is the ENGLISH language Wikipedia. The only question to ask, is:

Which unit system is being employed by a majority of English speakers? Then for the sake of Mankind you can start translating this article into other languages, converting the units to SI wherever it is culturally appropriate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.24.86 (talk • contribs)

Well, one could argue that the English language wiki is the international wiki. English is after all the language of the web. Nnp 23:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you choose the very lowest estimate of English speakers from English_language (530 million) you'll find that the majority of English speakers are not from the US and thus do not use US customary units. If you choose the highest estimate (1.38 billion) the ratio is around 3:1 non-US to US. Only by selective use of statistics can you claim the US customary system is used by the majority of English speakers. Well, I suppose you could also multiply the number of speakers using a particular unit system by their sense of self-importance :) --Mollymoo 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

lol -Stupidwhiteman 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Biggest Penis?

Cold Weather Adaptation

As my father would say, African-American males have what is known as a "shower dick", or, a penis that remains the same size whether flaccid or erect, while European men have penises which exhibit cold weather adaptation in becoming smaller after coitus. African-Americans and their forebearers evolved in a tropical savanah climate, which is typically warm or hot. Therefore, the penis remained distended to help radiate body heat to assist in cooling. This is the same reason persons of African descent have tightly curling hair, to shield the head from the intense African sun. European males, on the other hand, generally lived in cool or cold climates. The body, seeking to conserve body heat, adapted the European male penis to contract when not engaged in coitus. This climactic adaptation was unecessary for African males. The ultimate size of both races penises is approximately the same. The question of penis size ultimately is one of environmental evolutionary pressures. One is retractable, the other just stiffens with no appreciable increase in size, both being approximately equal in length.

Should this be perhaps added to the debate?

Possibly the debate, but clearly not the article... 81.232.72.53 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Where are the pictures?

I find it interesting that while there are multiple pictures to illustrate female breast size, there are NONE at this discussion of penis size. So much for NPOV. Pschemp 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good point. It might be hard to come by public domain images of penises whose lengths we know/believe, but absolutely worth trying. ^L_Wizard @ 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a start: Image:Penis_reduced.jpg - Samsara _contrib ^talk 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And here's the collection from Commons. Lovely. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue about Greek statues doesn't have to do with bringing more attention to the body, according to what I have heard:

   * 1. Long, thick penises were considered ... at least in the highbrow view ... grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on     fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians.
   * 2. A circumcised penis was considered particularly gross.
   * 3. The ideal penis was small, thin, and covered with a long, tapered foreskin.

Just a small note

absence of pics especially stands out given the plethora of graphics in the anus article.

Upon browsing through the commons today, I chanced upon a picture that seems designed for this article. How extremely fortunate. ^L_Wizard @ 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does stretching approximate erect length or not?

From the "Data" section:

The length of a stretched flaccid penis closely conforms to erect length.

...and 4 paragraphs later...

The length of the unstretched flaccid penis is no guide to the size of the erect penis; indeed, some men with small flaccid penes may have larger erections than men with larger flaccid penis

Which is it?

Hbackman 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The quotes you quoted aren't contradictory. Stretched does approximate erect length, unstretched does not. ^L_Wizard @ 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

They aren't contradictory, but the first isn't true. Macarion 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cutting through all the bullshit

I can't believe how much debate there is going on here. It's long been known that average length is between 5 and 7 inches - therefore the following table gives a good guide.

• 0-1 Micropenis
• 1-2 Very Small
• 2-3 Small
• 3-4 Below Average
• 4-5 Small Average
• 5-6 Average
• 6-7 Large Average
• 7-8 Above Average
• 8-9 Large
• 9-10 Very Large
• 10-11 Huge
• 11-12 Gigantic

There. Sorted. Now can we stop this pointless debate? 81.77.173.16 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, "It's long been known" isn't a very reliable source. ^L_Wizard @ 17:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The above table isn't consistent with Kinsey's standard deviations of 0.77 inches for erect length and 0.71 inches for erect girth (circumference). As a reminder, Kinsey's study was based upon pubic bone-pressed length and midshaft girth measurements. It was also based solely on the measurements of college-aged Caucasian men. The same goes for the Lifestyles Condoms survey, although the subjects were more diverse in terms of race. Here is a much more reasonable version of the above table, as well as a version based on girth, in half-inch increments:

Length

• <3.5" Micropenis (statistically abnormal)
• 3.5-4" Micropenis (-3 standard deviations)
• 4-4.5" Tiny
• 4.5-5" Very Small (-2 standard deviations)
• 5-5.5" Small
• 5.5-6" Below Average
• 6-6.5" Average (6.21" was Kinsey's average)
• 6.5-7" Above Average
• 7-7.5" Large
• 7.5-8" Very Large (+2 standard deviations)
• 8-8.5" Huge
• 8.5-9" Monstrous (+3 standard deviations)
• >9" Gigantic (statistically abnormal)

Girth

• <2.5" Micropenis (statistically abnormal)
• 2.5-3" Micropenis (-3 standard deviations)
• 3-3.5" Tiny
• 3.5-4" Very Small (-2 standard deviations)
• 4-4.5" Small
• 4.5-5" Average (4.85" was Kinsey's average)
• 5-5.5" Large
• 5.5-6" Very Large
• 6-6.5" Huge (+2 standard deviations)
• 6.5-7" Monstrous (+3 standard deviations)
• >7" Gigantic (statistically abnormal)

Solcis 09:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Kinsey's statistics cannot be truly be considered scientific, as the the size part of the survey relied on honesty, and was not measured by staff. Newer staff measured surveys such as the 1996 Journal of Urology put the average at 5 inches, while other staff measured surveys generally put it between 5-6 inches. Chilledsunshine 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some data for a change

Winter and Faiman in 1972 made some measurements that may be relavant to the discussion here.

Age (Years)	Length of Penis (cm ± SD)	Diameter of Testis (cm ± SD)
0.2-2	2.7 ± 0.5	1.4 ± 0.4
2.1-4	3.3 ± 0.4	1.2 ± 0.4
4.1-6	3.9 ± 0.9	1.5 ± 0.6
6.1-8	4.2 ± 0.8	1.8 ± 0.3
8.1-10	4.9 ± 1	2 ± 0.5
10.1-12	5.2 ± 1.3	2.7 ± 0.7
12.1-14	6.2 ± 2	3.4 ± 0.8
14.1-16	8.6 ± 2.4	4.1 ± 1
16.1-18	9.9 ± 1.7	5 ± 0.5
18.1-20	11 ± 1.1	5 ± 0.3
20.1-25	12.4 ± 1.6	5.2 ± 0.6

Does this vary among different populations? Sure. Shamloul, in 2005, summarized the data from 3 studies on penis sizes. I hunted another one in Korean men by Son et al (2003):

Investigator	Age Range (yr)	Flaccid Length (cm)	Stretched Length (cm)	Erect Length (cm)
Wessels et al, 1996	21–82	8.85	12.45	12.89
Smith et al, 1998	NA	NA	NA	15.71
Schneider et al, 2001	18–19	8.6±1.5	NA	14.48±1.99
	40–68	9.22±1.67	NA	14.18±1.83
Son et al, 2003	19-27	6.9±0.8	9.6±0.8	NA

I had to hunt the standard deviations for the Schneider article, which wasn't difficult, since the article is available online through our school library. It seems people here care a lot about this issue, so I imagine a trip to their local medical library to get the standard deviations for the other studies wouldn't be too much trouble. There's an even older study by Schoenfeld and Beebe (1942) that may have different numbers. You may also want to get an article by Fischer (1964) that relates penis length to body height. In any case, it seems that penis size, like most things in biology, does have a normal distribution.

Finally, all this energy about length is misspent. According to a recent survey by Eisenman (2001), the vast majority of female college students consider width to be more important for sexual satisfaction.

Yes BUT girth loosely correlates to size. AND the answers should be read as " 'more important' for any given length, not "short but thick" better than "long and thin". Come on, stop trying to find excuses and mislead people. --Tallard 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

References

• Eisenman R (2001). "Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction". BMC Womens Health. 1 (1): 1. PMID 11415468.
• Fischer R (1964). "Penis length and body height". Proc K Ned Akad Wet C. 67: 103–4. PMID 14146295.
• McAninch JW (2003). "Chapter 38: Disorders of the Penis & Male Urethra". In Tanagho EA, McAninch JW (ed.). Smith's General Urology (16th ed. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 0071396489. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Schneider T, Sperling H, Lummen G, Syllwasschy J, Rubben H (2001). "Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men". Urology. 57 (2): 314–8. PMID 11182344.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Schoenfeld WA, Beebe GW (1942). "Normal growth and variation in the male genitalia from birth to maturity". J Urol. 48: 759–777.
• Shamloul R (2005). "Treatment of men complaining of short penis". Urology. 65 (6): 1183–5. PMID 15922413.
• Smith AM, Jolley D, Hocking J, Benton K, Gerofi J (1998). "Does penis size influence condom slippage and breakage?". Int J STD AIDS. 9 (8): 444–7. PMID 9702591.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Son H, Lee H, Huh JS, Kim SW, Paick JS (2003). "Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men". Asian J Androl. 5 (3): 185–9. PMID 12937799.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW (1996). "Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation". J Urol. 156 (3): 995–7. PMID 8709382.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Winter JS, Faiman C (1972). "Pituitary-gonadal relations in male children and adolescents". Pediatr Res. 6 (2): 126–35. PMID 5047471.

I hope this helps. I swear, this is the longest talk page I've ever seen. Zyryab 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I took out the racial breakdown, since it has been shown to be untrue. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.192.100.171 (talk • contribs) .

Ref

http://singlesstop.com/advice/publish/article_344.shtml

This ref doesn't cite its source. Anyone know anywhere else this might be so it can be better referenced? Perhaps Guiness? --DanielCD 22:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This appears to have been vandalised:

"The mean penile length +/- S.D. for the full-term Asian baby was 3.6 +/- 0.4 cm. Race had a significant effect: Chinese 3.5 cm, Malay 3.6 cm, Indian 2.8, American 12.3 cm and Caucasian British 17.3 cm. In that study they also concluded that: "An Asian newborn whose penis measures less than 2.6 cm has micropenis and may need prompt investigation for underlying endocrine disorders." --Robert Merkel 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed image

File:Penis eregiert.jpg

A penis of somewhat impressive size

I removed this image (preserved with caption to explain context) on the basis that it adds no information to the article. If it was somehow related to measurement of the penis, I'd support its inclusion; I'd also support its use in the penis article if there were no images of penises, or no image of erect penises. But here it's just gratuitous. --Robert Merkel 08:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption inconsistent with article

File:TypicalHumanPenisScale.jpg

A large penis with scale in inches shown in erect and flaccid states, respectively

The picture currently illustrating an "average" penis next to a measuring tape seems to be 8 inches long. The article states the average is closer to 5.5" or 6". Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.194.200 (talk • contribs)

• Indeed, the picture does seem inaccurate. The upward bend also makes it not quite average. I'm removing it. ^L_Wizard @ 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Image returned with corrected caption. A curve in an erection is fairly common. Image included here.Biggishben 06:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• The image is clearly misleading. Probably intended to be so. If we are to believe the image, the man in the photo is 6 inches when flaccid! I think not. My own penis is 6 icnhes when fully erect, and I find it hard to believe that this man would have such a monstrous attribute. Also, the shadow reveals that the man's penis is not aligned with the measurement device, but is actually positioned quite some distance from it.--CaptainSurrey talk

normal penis?

I am 15 and my penis is 8 inches long. Is that normal? Jamie 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help. Jamie 10:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trust me, eight centimetres is a ripe old size for a young man. - CaptainSurrey

If you'd read the article, you'd see that the answer to your question is no... Your penis is about two inches larger than the average size. But the chances of a 15-year-old having an 8 inch penis is quite low. I suggest you look at the section about Measuring. --Dakart 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know it is measured properly because a few people have measured it. So you mean it is not normal? Jamie 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's truly 8 inches, it's 2 inches larger than normal. FYI: This sort of conversation should be moved to another site, it is not WP material. --Dakart 06:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a closer look at the mesuring tape. If you see "cm" there, then note that this are not inches! :)

Blocked troll. Skinnyweed 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

8 inches (erect) is normal, albeit rare for men of any age. Less than 2% of adult men (probably much less) are that big. Most guys penises are done growing by age 16, so it's not uncommon to be at or near mature adult size by 15. 206.148.156.122 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's please be careful of our wording, "normal" in medical terms has absolutely nothing to do with "normal" in statistical terms. I really wish this entire article would stop using "normal" in the statistical sense. Let's stick to "median" and "average", more precise terminology, especially in an article all about statistics and medical appropriateness. --Tallard 08:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Tallard. People are using "normal" in the wrong sense of the word here. Wits 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

Under 'Flaccid length', adjacent sentences say 'The length of a stretched flaccid penis closely conforms to erect length.', then 'The length of the unstretched flaccid penis is no guide to the size of the erect penis'. Then it says 'men with small flaccid penises may have larger erections than men with larger flaccid penises', then soon afterwards, 'it is generally accepted that every man's flaccid penis is approximately the same size'. Since none of these statements have a citation, I'm not sure what should be kept! -- Mithent 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't really so contradictory. Here's the situation: Most men have roughly the same size flaccid penis, but there is some variation. The variation is not a reliable guide to the variation in erect size. However, if you stretch a flaccid penis (i.e. grab it and pull until it hurts) then this stretched length is a good predictor of erect size. Does that help clear things up? ^L_Wizard @ 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Common doubts and questions

Penis size and age:

The part of the article that talks about the penis size and the age is not as clear and specific as I would like, and because of that I could not find the information I wanted. It would be good that someone would make a chart with the standard erect penis length and circumference by age, mainly in the adolescence.

Differences in the penis size between races:

I also wanted to know about the differences in the penis size between races (this article seems to be enough conservative and I have not found a final conclusion about this theme). Do those differences really exist?, and if the answer is "yes", which are they? Which is the standard erect penis size for black, eastern, native american, caucasian and hispanic adult males? I would like that someone would write about both lenght and circumference, but I am more interested in the first one.

Measuring the penis:

A last question: when you measure your penis, shuold the ruler be oppressed against the bone, or should it be softly put on the skin?

It is usual to press the ruler against the bone to avoid fatty tissue varying the result. Biggishben 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot reply to all those doubts and questions, please write what you know.

(Sorry for the mistakes you may find in this message. I am an Argentinian boy and I am learning English as a second language.)

Unclear info

In the 'Size at Birth' section, it is remarked that 'The average size at the beginning of puberty is 6 cm'. The editor needs to make changes declaring whether this refers to erect or flaccid length; 6 cm seems a little large for stretched flaccid length in prepubescent subjects in the onset of puberty.

Also, this article seems to focus on erect penis size, which is of no concern to me and many men like myself. It is more useful to know the average flaccid penis length. As well as that, other men such as myself will know that bigger penes do not mean greater pleasure for the women. It is known that in order to please a woman in coitus, one needs to rub against the clitoris as one thrusts in and out: this requires a medium lenth penis, not a very large one. The idea that a 9 inch penis can somehow be more pleasurable for a woman, is absurd.--213.40.3.65 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Size by Race

Personally I don't care what anyone's penis size is, much less what the statistics are by race. But, if these data are referenced here, and quoted by sizesurvey.com, then it is necessary, and important to quote exactly by the referenced source. In this source, it indicates in Figure 5. Caucasian = 6.5" in the red, Black = 6.1" in the green, Hispanic=5.9" in the blue, and East Asian=5.5" in the yellow.

The article also says, "Surprisingly, it would appear from Figure 5, that contrary to popular myth, Black males have shorter erect lengths than their Caucasian counterparts. However, due to the small sample size and large variation in lengths, this "difference" is not statistically significant."

Some may disagree with these numbers. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, if sizesurvey is the cited reference, then the numbers have to accurately reflect that reference. If you want to find other data, and cite a different reference and put it here also, or instead of this one, that's fine. But, misrepresentation of the data, in fact indicating a point directly opposite of the cited reference isn't correct. Tnanks, Atom 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This disagrees with data elsewhere in the article. No way is the overall average 5.7 if those numbers are true and it it doesn't match the chart, either. Ace of Sevens 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the important point is that the article references a citation, and that it quotes the citation accurately. In this case, the data from that site does have those listed. If we can find other data from better, or more reputable sources, rather than an Internet survey, then we can change the entry to reflect those data, rather than this one. That source indicates an average erect length of 6.4" though.

The sources that said 5.7" were different sources:

• A study published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology concluded that average erect length was 129 mm (5 in). (Measured by staff)[4]
• A study by a Brazilian urologist found an average of 5.7 inches (14.5 cm). (Measured by researchers)
• A German study in 1996 also reported an average of 5.7 inches (14.5 cm). (Measured by researchers)

The first of these is cited, ^ a b Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. "Penile Length in the Flaccid and Erect States: Guidelines for Penile Augmentation," Journal of Urology, Vol. 195, 995-997, 1996.

The other two don't seem to have cites. Note that the article does comment "There have been several studies regarding the average size of the human penis. The majority of such studies could be unreliable due to self-selection bias: men with a smaller than average penis might be less likely to allow themselves to be measured, while men with a larger than average penis might be more likely to allow themselves to be measured. It is unkown if this conjectured self-selection bias has been confirmed by any studies, or if any studies have attempted to account for potential self-selection bias regarding penis size."

Do you think that we should remove the uncited references, or mark them as not having cites more clearly? Do you think that we should put more emphasis on the cited scientific studies, and less emphasis on the Internet self-selected studies? (They are not random studies. Men with smaller penis size are more likely to pass over participation, and men with larger size are more likely to participate.)

Regards, Atom 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize that mean and average are basically synonomous. However, the cited quote says "average". Even if "mean" sounds more "statistical", or "official", remaining true to the cite should be the priority. Atom 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I partly reverted your revert as we are not citing quotes here, and figure 5 has "Figure 5. Mean (±s.e.)" so it would appear that mean being a more accurate term should be used. We must include metric conversions and format measurements correctly as per the manual of style and place the original measurements first with conversions second (all the inch measurements are converted from millimetres). --Clawed 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Yes, the chart does say "Mean". Atom 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is VERY poor academic work to include non-scientific internet self-study surveys which contain obvious selection bias. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA folks. We should not have information which is clearly dubious as references. Both the JackinWorld and the "definitive size survey" are weak and erroneous references. They also GREATLY contradict more valid research as listed in the original studies on the site. They should be removed from the page if this article is to be considered in a serious light. User:24.8.5.191 01:36, 22 July 2006

Since this stuff is done by consensus, we should respect the work done previously, and do our best to make it better. I agree we should find more detail about the legitimate scientific studies, and emphasize those, and not the less respectable, and less accurate studies. I suppose that they are more prominent, because they are easier to access and quote. Atom 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know where this fits (no pun intended), but I googled this for verification and was kind of surprised not to see it in the article (now that I know I remembered correctly, and wasn’t propogating some urban legend). It’s actually interesting, in the context of “by race,” since most of the EU is considered white, yet there seem to be ethnic/national deviations within that. Wiki Wikardo and I go at sleepy time, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it all back, as word on the street is Germans were the only ones who measured, which makes sense, as the EU specs seem larger than the avg cited here —Hey, Wiki.

I have noticed that when you cite Caucasin or White based data, it comes first in the findings and is the biggest or best. I agree with all the comments above and below that the data listed is erroneous and flawed. I noticed that your opening clip shows that the White penis on average is larger than the Black penis. You did not highlight the data on the second survey that showed the Black man's penis on average was larger. When you showed in another study that the Black man's penis was larger, you still placed the Black man's stats second and buried it in minutia behind the White man's stats. I also read this bit about Blacks coming from hot regions and their penises had to always be extended so they could cool off. Hey buddy, do you see the African animals, horses, gorillas, giraffes, etc walking around the jungle floor with long extended penises venting off heat? I sense a lot of White Supremacy in subtle ways in your findings. The White man is the best, has the biggest penis of all races, and its so knarly, it is even retractable. One day you are going to find Blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Asians writing these articles and being the so called expert and I bet the findings will surely not reflect the trash I am reading here today. I was interested a little in the beginning but then everything went right into a racial issue. These studies that you have listed are quite laughable, literally, and for sure!!!!—4.131.159.234 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

Micropenis

I have marked this section as disputed, as it's wording suggests that Micropenis is a syndrome rampant in Asian populations, when the cited study was conducted with primarily Japanese control subjects, with no comparison to other races. There is nothing in the cited article to suggest that the syndrome is more prevalant in Asians than in other races. A re-phrasing of the section would be appropriate.

rant on - I am of the opinion, that Americans(of which I belong), and Western Europeans, even non-racist ones tend to clump Asians into one category. It is only a small percentage of the population that realizes, or makes a distinction between different Asians. Many Americans are surprised when someone from India is described as Asian. Whereas Japanese and Koreans fit into the same category, as do Phillipinos, Chinese, Tibetians, and Malaysians. For most Americans, they think of the world population of Asians to be basically similar to the percentage of asians in the U.S. population -- as a small minority, when, in fact, Asians (used in the broadest sense) are the large majority of the world population. They don't realize that Koreans and Japanese have a long history of difficulty (animosity?) that precedes the founding of the United States by a thousand years. rant off

If we can gather more specific scientific data regarding Micropenis, we could put it in here. In the mean time I will try and see how it could be reworded to be more neutral. Atom 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The following study might be a helpful addition as citation:

Cheng, P. K. and J. P. Chanoine (2001). "Should the definition of micropenis vary according to ethnicity?" Horm Res 55(6): 278-81. OBJECTIVE: We determined whether the existing reference values for the diagnosis of micropenis are appropriate for optimal care of neonates in a multiethnic environment like Vancouver. METHODS: The stretched penile length and width were measured in 105 full-term newborn males of Caucasian (n = 40), Chinese (n = 40) and East-Indian origin (n = 25). RESULTS: Mean length -2.5 SD was used for the definition of micropenis and was 2.6, 2.5 and 2.3 cm for Caucasian, East-Indian and Chinese babies, respectively (p < 0.05). This is close to the widely accepted recommendation that a penile length of 2.4- 2.5 cm be considered as the lowest limit for the definition of micropenis. CONCLUSION: Mean penile length and diameter are slightly but significantly smaller in newborns of Chinese origin compared to newborns of Caucasian and East-Indian origins.

WP:MOS

This is particularly for user:clawed. The MOS is rather broad, if you have specific comments, it would be more useful. In particular your edit changed some of the races from upper case to lower case. I left them upper case as that was how it was in the cited source, but I can live with them being lower case, the meaning is still there. As for adding back the metric measurements, I think that metric measurements, especially in the context of other references using them is great. However, I cited the source article, and the source article did not give metric measurements. The numbers you used, I assume, are a guess, or estimate of that the metric measurement would be? I imagine the original english measurements were rounded to some level of accuracy, and conversion may nor may not be accurate. My thought was that using the article directly as quoted, and letting the reader go to the source article might be better.

You also edited the text of the reference. Your edit read pretty well to me, but was different than the quoted, cited, source. Since we have had continual edits and changes to this data, over and over, by people who are offended about where their race might fit into this anecdotal survey, I felt that quoting simply, and exactly from the survey might minimize potential future controversy. We can say "We don't agree, or disagree. This is exactly how the source document said it."

Also, my previous edit to trim down that source and the source following it were to reduce it significanly in size, to give it less emphasis. The variety of disclaimer stuff you added were, for one, already there preceding the two surveys. And for two, gives it more emphasis, rather than less. I moved these surveys to the end of the penis size data because they are not scientific studies, and of significantly less important than the preceding data which were. Numerous people have suggested, or asked that these two sources be removed altogether as they are anecdotal information, and not studies. A previous edit of mine removing them was reverted by an editor that felt that these were useful in some way.

Perhaps we could summarize the citation with the same measurements again, in metric? I had thought of that, but did not have the actual survey data available in order to accurately state the english measurements in metric. Perhaps your raw conversion is better than nothing, even if it is only roughly estimated.

What I mean is, for example "5.9 in. for Hispanic men" cm=in*2.54; 5.9*2.54=14.986 cm. If in the study, the mean was really 5.90, then would you put 14.9 cm, or 15.0 cm? If it was really 5.94 in, 5.94*2.54=15.086 cm would you put 15.1 cm, or 15.0 cm? What if the original mean was really 5.85, and they rounded to 5.9, 5.85*2.54=14.859, and then should we put 14.8 cm, or 14.9cm ? Since the raw data is not given, we could estimate 14.8 cm, 14.9 cm or 15.0 cm. So, it seemed to me that our chouces are 1) Don;t estimate, let the reader make up their own mind what the data means. 2) Estimate, and it if is a little off, so what. Since the data, I guess, is supposed to represent some kind of scientific process, my choice was option 1 over your choice, option 2. Atom 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version of the section because the units have to be formatted correctly. This article should be a proper scientfic analysis not a 3rd grade essay. Please format units properly and properly refernece other work. Currently in the article there is:

In group one mean midshaft circumference was 8.98+/-1.4, mean flaccid length was mean 9.3+/-1.9, and mean stretched length was 13.5+/-2.3. In group two, mean flaccid length was 7.7+/-1.3, and mean stretched length was 11.6+/-1.4"

What is the unit of measurement here?

According to the Definitive Penis Size Survey, the "mean length of the erect penis according to racial background" reported 6.5 in. for Caucasian men, 6.1 in. for Black men, 5.9 in. for Hispanic men, and 5.5 in. for East Asian men. "The average flaccid length among Blacks however was 93.8 mm (3.7") compared to 87.7 mm (3.4") for Caucasians."

Why are there no metric conversions of the inch measurements? why is " used instead of inch or in? why are the original units placed in the brackets with the conversions first?--Clawed 05:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the unit if measurement in all scientific studies seems to be measured in centimeters. I had gone through and expressed that as the first, and primary unit. I don't know why we need english measurement at all, but I am sure someone would be offended.

Scond, again, it seems to added the English measurements back into the definitive penis survey stuff, even though we don't know what they were. Again I assume you are estimating the data? Also, throughout the rest of the article, I have tried to express everything in centimeters first, and then inches in parens.

A majority of changes you (user:Clawed) made looks great. But, I'm going to edit the penis survey thing again.

Why don't we just remove the surveys? I guess they have human interest value? Atom 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the article again, after it was changed, again. I expressed priamry unit in cm, as all of the scientific surveys referenced expressed the data in their reports in centimeters. Also, put centimeters first and inches in parens as metric is the world standard, and not english measurement.

I'm kind of tired of changing the units back to what they should be, frankly. Why we can;t leave them in the same way they were expressed by the scientists who made the reports is beyond me.

Also, I can't understand how you can convert from centimeters to inches when you don't have the raw data from the reports to do so. Otherwise, the conversion to inches is only an approximation. I guess an approximation is better than not expressing english units. That way people who can't convert from metric to inches will know how their penis compares, without having to actually do a conversion. Atom 20:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be much friendlier if users who have strong feelings about changing things would just spend the time to discuss the issue first, and then we can come to some kind of consensus, rather than forcing you view on a wide number of people who don't agree. Atom 20:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Porn

I've heard this suggested before, and it seems possible, that porn may contribute misconceptions and self doubts relating to penile size since (not suprisingly) most porn stars have larger then average penis sizes. No specific reference but I'm sure someone could find one Nil Einne 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this is a factor, since most men don't watch porn, and little of porn focuses on men. I'm not sure if it is true that most male porn stars have larger than average penises. But, it is probably true that most porn starts do not have smaller than average penises. Although this could skew someones perspective, as I said, not that many people (as compared to the population) watch much porn. Atom 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that's relevant. We're talking about men with size insecurity, not men as a whole. Besides, in Europe, North America, Japan and Thailand, which is where I understand this is mainly an issue, I'd venture that almost all men have had some porn exposure. I don't see whether porn focuses on men to be a relevant issue. Ace of Sevens 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Most men don't watch porn? Where'd you get that statistic? Porn is a huge industry (no pun intended), so quite a lot of people must be consuming it. ^L_Wizard @ 23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured someone would have to argue. I think the person who said that men watching men in porn affected their perceptions of penis size has the obligation of statistics. Yes, online erotica and pornography is a big industry, but even so, most people do not see much porn. Alot of these studies were done before the Internet and online porn, and has shown men have been unreliable at estimating their penis size as compared to others. Atom 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I think it's fair to point out that at least some of the porn' industry's success stems from their customers being prepared to shell out large amounts of money to the point of porn being on a per page or per minute basis vastly over-valued versus other media genres. Plus it lends itself to consumer frenzy. Porn makes for a need for more porn. 68.48.160.243 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Big mistake

There appears to be an error in one of the quoted measurements. I quote:

A 2005 Study, "Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction." The purpose of this work was to determine penile size in adult normal (group one, 271) and impotent (group two, 109). In group one mean midshaft circumference was 89.8±14 cm, mean flaccid length was mean 9.3±19 cm, and mean stretched length was 13.5±23 cm. In group two, mean flaccid length was 7.7±13 cm, and mean stretched length was 11.6±14 cm.[23]

The 89.8cm figure cannot be right (it's nearly a metre!) 81.178.216.51 16 August 2006

I checked the original citation and fixed the error. The error seems to have occurred when an editor changed the reference cited in cm to mm, and then it was changed back from mm to cm, incorrectly. Probably my doing. Atom 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Testicles

The statement in the second sentence that humans have the largest testicles among the primates simply isn't true. Chimpanzees have larger testicles generally, and this is difference is even greater when considered against body size. I've heard this several places, and the first applicable Google result agreed. I'd change it myself but I'm not sure where to find more legitimate sourcing. --Jammoe 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, The Encyclopedia of Mammals: 1 (1984) of the World of Animals series states that chimpanzee testicles weigh 120 g (4¼ oz). It wasn't specific whether this was for a single testicle or both testicles, but that's hardly relevant: chimpanzees have humans clearly beat in either case. --Anshelm '77 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the claim. ^L_Wizard @ 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found something on the subject here. Also this one suggested that it's a combined weight. --Anshelm '77 12:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

False precision

I'm rounding several data values given in the article because of false precision issues. When presenting scientific data, the number of digits displayed implies something about the precision of your data. For instance:

"A study published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology concluded that average erect length was 12.9 cm (5.03 in)". Checking the cite confirms that the study reported a figure of 12.9cm. This implies a precision of around 0.05cm in that data - i.e. about 0.02in. It is therefore not appropriate to list the conversion as '5.03in', which implies a precision of 0.005in or better.

"A study by a Brazilian urologist found an average of 14.6 cm (5.75 in)" - in the absence of a cite, I'm going to assume the findings were reported in cm, in which case the same consideration as above applies.

"A study conducted by LifeStyles Condoms during 2001 Spring Break in Cancún, Mexico found an average of 14.928 cm (5.877 in) with a standard deviation of 2.096 cm (0.825 in)."

According to the linked page, this result was calculated from 300 subjects. Combined with the standard deviation info, that says that the expected error in that average is about (SD/sqrt(n)) = 2.096cm/sqrt(300) = 0.12cm. Given that sort of error, the last two digits given above are not meaningful - yes, Ansell's own writeup is pretty sloppy.

Similarly, the standard-deviation values need to be rounded to a more sensible precision. --Calair 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Food affect size?

Does your penis size get affected by what type of food you eat?

FOr example, if bananas increase it, I'll be eating a hell of a lot of them. ~ Questioner

Sure, diet influences body growth including your penis. Not in the matter that you can eat a bunch of a certain food and expect to increase your penis size. Just a healthy well balanced diet to reach you full growth potential (assuming your growing years aren't over yet).

Hormone levels probably have an effect, so you need to have enough zinc, vitamin d (from sunshine and/or food), etc... to manufacture testosterone. You need ideal amounts, too much of one nutrient can disturb the balance of other nutrients possibly causing the opposite of the intended effect. So for instance, you might want to eat some sprouted pumpkin seeds to correct a zinc deficiency, but eating tons of them would do no better and may actually be counterproductive. Avoiding toxins in food and your environment may also have an effect.

Your potential size is predetermined by genetics and the environment in the womb (e.g. testosterone exposure during gestation). There have been studies showing chemicals/contaminates/pollutants cause smaller penis size and less fertitility in animals. Here's one example of those studies -> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/gallery/alligators.html I've seen several other similar studies on various animals, which would lead me to assume it applies to humans as well. Although nothing has been proven (on humans specifically). So eating better and avoiding toxins will most likely have an effect (on penis size), albeit an increasing smaller effect the the older you are. With the most effect if started at gestation (by you mother eating well and avoiding contaminates) and no effect if past adolescence (since your penis is already done growing). Obviously taking care of yourself (regardless of age) will have other benefits (even it has neglible to zero effect on penis size). So it doesn't hurt to try. Wits 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Biological Reasons Redux

Two years later and no one has bothered to write this up. I'm hardly an expert, but I've seen the evolutionary arguments presneted many times. That "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." gives me pause from just jumping in and adding it: I don't have good references to back me up. --Elijah 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there are alot of good argument/theories as to why. I would think it would be reasonable to source that information, but with caution as to the wording. I found another article dealing with the biological reasons for human penis morphology at http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep021223.html --Wits 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

frequency chart

user:CasperEACClemence, you removed the chart that shows frequenct versue size, and I took a good look at it, and it seems like a useful chart. I'm wondering what your objections are about it? I will try to find the source for that information to check the accuracy/validity of what is shown versus the reference. Atom 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The frequency versus size should be a bar chart. Joining the data up with a wiggly line like that is not normally done. The percentile chart is fine though.WolfKeeper 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the source of the graph is user:Biggishben) on 18 May 2006 described as (Self made image). The caption is "Frequency Graph of Lifestyles Data". There is a reference to Lifestyles data given as "ANSELL RESEARCH - The Penis Size Survey (March 2001). Retrieved on 2006-07-13."[1] The web site has this comment "Ansell, makers of LifeStyles Condoms, has conducted research into average penis size. The survey found that the average length of the erect penis is 5.877 inches (14.928cm), with the majority ranging between the small 5.5 inch penis size (14cm) and the large 6.3 inch penises (16cm)."

See "Article too sympathetic" above for the raw data.WolfKeeper 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An inspection of the chart shows the peak of the bell shaped curve at approximately at roughly 5.8 inches. The Ansel description of the average length at 5.877 inches seems consistent. When they say the majority are between 5.5 inches and 6.3 inches, they mean 54%. They don't mean one standard deviation (1σ = ~68% listed as 0.825 inches; between 5.052 in. and 6.702 in.).

I'm looking for the raw data that must have been used for making the chart. The chart has datum markings, and I am not sure what those are. The sample size of the Ansel research is listed as 300 men, yet there are 22 points on the chart. There seems to be no raw data vailable for verification.

One could argue whether a sample size of 300 men, taken at a night club in Cancun. Mexico over a four day period, during spring break, would apply to men of all age groups, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I'm sure the data was useful to Ansel in deciding what shape condoms to make. But, is our job to verify the source of the data, not the accuracy of the data reported in Wikipedia. Whether this is a reliable source could be a question worth asking. Atom 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the graphs should be removed. Firstly, as Atom pointed out, the raw data for the Ansell study does not seem to be made publicly available - so where did these graphs come from? Secondly, there are major methodological issues with this study - multiple people measuring, 75% of the recruited sample was excluded (the 25%, 100 people - could change the mean and spread substantially), and the measurements were taken in tents (temperature, eg, affects penis size). Moreover, the link to the study does not describe HOW the penis was measured (BIG problem). For all these reasons, the graphs cannot possibly be considered a scientific or credible depiction of penis size - keeping them there is misleading. Lifeliver4 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA fail

Reviewed This version

This article is classified under "Articles with unsourced statements" and is not therefore eligable for GA.

• Multiple unsupported assertations in article.
• A section on the fictional TV show "Sex in the City" is more suited to "References to penis size in popular culture" than a factual piece of the article.
• Long list in "Race and penis size" should be converted to prose.
• Order of the sections does not seem to follow any logical pattern.

Otherwise, the text of the article is reasonably well-written. TimVickers 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Penis Diameter

Is it possible to add a section about penis diameter, and what's normal and what's large in diameter? thanks

There is a section on circumference (distance around). That is conventionally how "width" is measured with the penis. Atom 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well,Is 4.5 cm diameter a large one? rgds

You only have to multiply it by pi (aproximately 3.14) to find out the circumference (e.g.: 4.5 x 3.14 = 14.13 cm, which is 1.53 larger than the average penis measured by LifeStyles Condoms). 201.62.137.213 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientic status of Ansell study

It seems that the Ansell study should not be classfied as "Academic/Scientific." The main reason being it cannot be classed as rigorous science being that does not fully describe it’s methods (how are they measuring penis length? Who are these “qualified medical staff” doing measuring? How did they recruit participants (did they just randomly approach people and ask if they wanted their penis measured?)). Moreover, a common conception of a scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed journal - unlike the Ansell study. For these reasons, I believe the study should be moved to a separate section, say, "Other studies." Any takers? Lifeliver4 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The accuracy and verifiability of the Ansel study, as well ast the Internet studies (Sizesurvey and Jackinworld) have been debated before. The Ansel study was more "scientific" as the results were of interest to the company making them (condom manufacturer). However, as you point out, it is not peer reviewed, and not highly meaningful. It is good general interest, as long as someone takes it within the correct context (A random collection of volunteers at a Cancun spring break) and not indicative of a sample of all men, or North Americans. I thought about it before, and figured that the main value of the information was more about general interest. As long as we put it in the right context, I think it should stay. BUt, we don;t want to indicate that it was "Academic and Scientific" I think. I will move it into a new category. If anyone feels that category wording needs to change, feel free to change it. Atom 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Record

Shouldn't the record length be here? I put it a while back, with a source, but someone has sinced removed it.

What's the correct name for the inner most area of vaginal stimulation (never mind)?

I recently added some info on other areas of vaginal response. There are really several names for possible areas of deeper stimulation (past g-spot). I'm going to talk about the area I called the "cul-de-sac" in the latest edit.

I've heard it called the A-spot, AFE-zone, epicentre, and cul-de-sac. With the first 3 names usually referring to the anterior fornix, and the latter to the posterior fornix (as far as I can interpret).

The cervix, posterior fornix, anterior fornix, and cul-de-sac are all within close proximity of eachother. So bumping the cervix for instance could indirectly stimulate the cul-de-sac, etc... So there can be some confusion as to what is being stimulated and thus what it should be called.

Supposedly this area is the female equivalent of the prostate. Possibly the same area being indirectly stimulated from different sides. So what should this area be called? I used "cul-de-sac" in the article, but this would be stimulation from one side whilst the other top side is more commonly referred to as the A-spot or AFE-zone. I'm leaning towards epicentre as I have heard it mentioned for both areas (although usually referring to anterior) or uteral (since it's in the area of uterus). Anyone found anything definite on this?

Some links that might help for those researching -> http://www.heretical.com/miscella/g-spots.html http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1596#F3 And of course the links on the article page regarding the cervix and cul-de-sac.

Perhaps it should be left as "cul-de-sac" since I interpret this (from studies/articles) as the area being stimulated indirectly from different sides or indirectly by cervix. Thought I would bring up the terminology to see if anyone knew more definately. Wits 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this info concerning the cul-de-sac contradicts the info starting the section on vaginal stimulation. Since this area is stimulated indirectly (not by actual contact) it wouldn't be affected by swipping the inner vagina with a q-tip or even a scapel. There would need to be more pressure (such as by a thrusting penis). Evidence does point towards the clitoris/vulva being the the most important areas to bring most women off, but also that a significant minority are equally or better served by deep vaginal stimulation. Wits 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about.CerealBabyMilk 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All the sources I've cited on deeper vaginal stimulation use different terminology. So bear with my uncertainty on the matter. That's why I brought it up for discussion here. Please explain If you know better. Wits 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no consensus has been reached, I added the other terms to the cul-de-sac section. AKA "A-Spot, AFE-Zone, AFE, T-Spot, or epicentre". So never mind. Wits 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Penis Size of Different Races

During the 1970s, I had sex to orgasm with about 1,000 different males of all races at the gay bathhouses of San Francisco. I can state categorically from personal experience that there definitely is a difference in the erect penis size of various races. Keraunos Using rough ballpark estimates, I would say the average size when erect of the Caucasian and Hispanic penis is about six inches, of the Black African penis about seven inches, and of the East Asian penis about five inches. Keraunos 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) All my sex at the gay bathhouses was mutual oral sex (69) (no anal sex), so I was in a unique position (pun intended) to make these measurements. Keraunos 06:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the largest penis I ever encountered was that of a Caucasian from Arkanasas in 1970, a full 12 inches when erect. Keraunos 05:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

LifeStyles data

The graphs in this article reference the LifeStyles study, and the references point to a summary of the study's results. Does anyone have a source reference for the data used to draw the graphs? -- The Anome 11:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelangelo's David

This curious paragraph has little or nothing to do with penis size and in any case needs a citation. The penis on Michelangelo's David shows no evidence of partial circumcision that I can see. Foreskins vary among individuals; they very often do not in fact extend beyond the glans. Even if the assertion about the change in Jewish ritual circumcision at some time in the Christian Era is correct, it seems unlikely that Michelangelo would have known much about it.

Graph

Isn't it funny that the penis graph actually looks like an erect penis?

penises

im uterly descresed at your adult filth

Lex Luther

I recall from one of the new Outsiders comics Lex Luther said as an insult to Gorilla Grodd that "man has the largest penis of any primate". Do we know if this is true? Are we talking just proportional to body size? Does this have implications with regards sexual selection, somewhat like the plumage of pheasants or other over-developed animal features? 68.48.160.243 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "vaginal response"

What is stated here is NOT true and urgently needs revision. The most sensitive part of a woman's genitalia is located far deeper than 10 cm from the labia, and very few men can indeed reach that point -- unless the partners adopt special positions in copulation. This article reads as put together by a male 'amateur' writer to pacify men's -- and his own -- conscience, and it's simply false. By no means is this a fair account of the facts, I honestly do not see how this could ever be a "good article" at all. -Unsigned

I'll agree that this section is still biased. I added some information to counter bashing of longer penises (several minor edits over past couple months). Before it implied there was no area of sensation past g-spot (at all) and that long penises would usually cause problems (neither is true). But it would also be biased to say that deeper penetration hits the "most" sensitive area.

some women definately do get better sensation from this area. It can be argued that this is because most women don't experience deeper penetration (due to shorter penises or technique/positions that don't hit area), and thus they may also get equal or better sensation deeper in. But that would be conjecture since there haven't been studies to back it up (and probably never will be). While it on other hand has been shown that most women orgasm through primarily clitoral stimulation.

The same thing ("it's conjecture") could be said about much of the other info in this section. So it may be best to present the relevant information (with references) and not make any conclusions. Such as longer or shorter penises stimulating better. There is too much contrary information to make these claims so it may better left up to the readers interpretation. Wits 14:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Size Doesn't matter ??

The continual statement from experts and others male and female, the statement that size is inconsequential where the female is concerned seems to me to exemplify a society where everything has become surreal, euphemized, even political. There are are a number of positions possible during sex, positions very pleasurable to women (at least those with whom I've had sex), positions unattainable with small (short, that is) penises. Unless one must say that women don't enjoy varied positions (and the play related during sex), "size does't matter" statements are nonsense. - - It's difficult for me, for one, so accept statements by supposed experts - professional and otherwise - who knowledge is so obviously flawed. I note that one study published recently on the internet has it that college women eighteen to twenty-five years of age stated that size - especially length - didn't matter. I should think the implications of both their age and environment would make this kind of study suspect, too. - - It may very well be that human sexuality is an example of the kind of science we get nowadays. I notice similarly illogical and invalid "studies" everywhere these day, and they are beginning to do a great deal of harm. Interested in religious and political mendacity where sex and gender are concerned since high school, I find that the subject has definable parallels everywhere in daily affairs. Homo Sapiens - "Thinking Man" - it seems, would far rather know what he wants to know than what is the truth. user:Judo Knight 10:52, 27 November 2006

Perhaps it is the case that for the most part "size doesn't matter"?? You seem to doubt this for some reason. I'm sure that what they are saying is that for women, 90% of men under the bell curve (5-7" in length) that the length is sufficient to get the job done, and that width (not length) and the personality and desire to please of the man is more important than length for a large majority of the people. Atom 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand to the extent of, it must be there obviously, and, at least a couple inches but, I've heard adult and younger women claim they were closer to orgasm with a *small penis compared to large one.

Opinions? 75.21.50.44 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis volume, or displacement, matters!

Since we live in a 3 dimensional world, we must evaluate this topic using 3 dimensional parameters. The parameter most central among this debate is that of volume, or displacement. This takes all 3 dimensional parameters- those of length, width and depth- and combines them using the mathematical formula for the volume of a cylinder <(the area of the base)*height, or πr^2*h>.

Using this formula, if we take the widely cited "normal" adult penis length of 5-7 inches and girth of 4-6 inches, then a penis that's 5 inches in length by 4 inches in girth will displace just under 6.5 cubic inches of volume. At the other end of the scale of "normal", a penis that's 7 inches in length by 6 inches in girth will displace 20 cubic inches of volume. In comparison, the 7x6 inch penis at the higher end of "normal" displaces more than 3 times (214%) as much 3 dimensional space, or volume, as the 5x4 inch penis at the lower end. I repeat: 3 times as much ! That is SUBSTANTIAL, no matter how you look at it, or how much you want to deny it.

Put another way, the 7x6 inch penis is more than 3 times larger than the smaller 5x4 inch penis (again, both of which are considered "normal"), in terms of volume! The human eye can easily tell the difference between both of the above cited penises, but it can be assured that a human orifice, such as a mouth, vagina, or anus, would be able to differentiate between the two far more readily due to the physical manipulation (i.e. displacement) caused by the larger penis upon the surrounding tissues. Such manipulation is normally a stretching, or even pulling, of the orifice in question. And because it's been argued that pressure applied to the g-spot, and/or the repeated pulling of the clitoral hood across the clitoris are responsible for orgasm, it can be said that penis volume is of paramount importance to the sexual satisfaction of the woman. Size definitely matters in this respect.

One final note: due to the above equation of calculating volume, penis width is more important than length by a power of 2. Perhaps this is why women, when asked to cite which is more important, are far more likely to choose girth over length.

-Solcis 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew that calculating penis size correctly by volume (vs. just length or girth) would show more of a difference, but I didn't realize by this much. 206.148.156.85 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This theory is simply ridiculous. If volume were really the only thing that mattered, then a regular 5" circumference 6" length penis would be just as good/pleasurable/choiceworthy as a penis that is 2.5" in girth and 2 feet long, something I find hard to believe.--141.154.232.5 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no theory here. One cannot argue that size does not matter in a physical sense, with respect to volume. Clearly it does, since a greater volume will displace more of the surrounding orificial tissues. Obviously the volume can be too great for the orifice in question, leading to pain, or even a failure of entry. But size does matter- for good or for worse. Your comparison between a 6 inch long by 5 inch girth penis, and one that's 2 feet in length by 2.5 inches in girth, is nonsensical. Seriously. I don't understand it AT ALL.

-Solcis 20:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New research on penis size/condom failure in India

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6161691.stm

Jato57 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek Penis Size

Just curious. I've heard there was a stereotype that Greeks had big penises. 204.52.215.107 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the Greeks I know. :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

re: race and penis size': Page is taking a questionable diversion (racism?) to building up references to articles concerning penis sizes of different races?

This *recently introduced* section in question, seems to be developing into a racist article whilst attempting to appear legitimate by citing various references to apparant studies on penis size in relation to race. The topic is in inherently racist, and I feel the whole article is being subverted by a few people in order that they try and build up a list ultimately that attempts to define the size of persons penis in a racial context.

As well as being racist, there are issues where:

a) Various readers of the article may take offense if somehow the page portrays their race as having the smallest penis size

b) It encourages some of the recent vandalism seen where people edit the page with statements such as 'Asians have the smallest dicks'

c) The general direction that section of the page is taking is not in alignment generally of the principles of that which an encyclopedia should be following.

d) The article has become or is becoming racist whether in be favourable or unfavourable.

I raise this issue in mind with what would be considered acceptable, factually correct, and the line that would be followed if the article was formalised. You would never imagine the Encylopedia Britannica to print such material, why should Wikipedia?

Obviously it's a section where the content has to be rigorously referenced and urban myths assiduously avoided. Sockatume 13:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No reference can define the private anatomy of 1 billion people+ in the case of indian sub continent.

We need to distinguish "racism" from "facts." It's not racist to say that Ashkenazim are more likely to have Tay-Sachs than most other people, because it's true. It's not racist to say that white people are more likely to develop skin cancer than black people, because it's true. If it's true that Indian people, on average, have smaller penises than other people, it isn't racist to say that. ^L_Wizard @ 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you ultimately saying that the direction that this portion of the page needs to take now is to convey the size of manhoods depending on country of origin or race? Are we going to end up with a list of countries, each referencing one news article or otherwise that states average penile lengths of people from China, Russia, Brazil and so forth? This is clearly a silly direction for an encyclopedic article to take. And with conflicting views on penis size, i'm sure I could find a reference to a study that supports that argument that black men have on average larger penises Volatileacid 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that the article would be stating "this is so". In fact the research has drawn no such conclusions, so it'd be a section on the research itself and its findings. Given the number of mutually contradictory studies it could be limited to a single sentence: "Some research has indicated variation by continent(citation1)(citation2)(citation3) however there also exists a significant body of research indicating no significant variation(citation1)(citation2)(citation3)".Sockatume 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response dosen't make sense. Can you try and be more clear, coherent, concise and logical? If some research indicates one finding, and other research indicates another finding, the question still remains in context and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the issue - are we going to cite every reference we can find to build up a world database of findings of different penis sizes referencing bit part studies that have apparantly concluded sizes for the different races from around the world? Volatileacid 12:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, a couple of studies as examples for each conclusion ("difference" and "no difference") would be sufficient. This is, at heart, an anatomical question, so people are going to want to know what medicine's view is. The best answer we can give them is "no concensus has been reached". Sockatume 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose that it were indeed true that men from country A had penises that were, on average, 3 inches longer than the average penis from country B. Wouldn't that be an interesting finding? I sure would be interested to know it. And sure, men from country B might become depressed/offended/whatever that they have small penises, but hey, peddling to their sensitivies would be alike to censoring out of Wikipedia the fact that Ashkenazim are more likely to have Tay-Sachs just because some Ashkenazim might get bummed out by that fact. And suppose further that there is indeed a strong correlation between the man's country of origin and the average penis size. I would have no problem with having a list of those lengths, provided adequate research exists. We list all sorts of facts by country: size, population, GDP per capita, power consumption,... Your argument is just like saying that we shouldn't list countries by GDP per capita because people from Niger might get upset/offended/depressed because Wikipedia says their country is poor. Now, I think that a list of penis size by country would be mostly uninformative, since I expect that, say, Germans and Norweigians have the same penis size (within the margin of error), as do, say Kenyans and Tanzanians. But I think that there is some very good scientific evidence (even if it is not all consistent) that indicates that members of different races have different penis sizes. --141.154.232.5 06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rushton not a reliable source?

WARNING WIKIPEDIA is quoting an alleged RACIST, i.e. Mr Rushton of University of Western Ontario, as such this source cannot be considered valid. If a copy of this article were to be sent to news organizations, the editors of this article might not enjoy the scrutiny. See the following references:

• http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/racialscientestrushton.html --> "Racial Scientist Rushton Takes Over Pioneer Fund", an organization associated with eugenics.
• http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=29 -->"Jean Philippe Rushton ... the father of the modern day scientific and intellectual racists"

--24.200.55.19 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First line, "Penis size is important to many people" Ha! what a riot! RofL!

..sorry

Race and Penis Size and Condom Use

These sections appear to be entirely unscientific. The quasi-racial categories demonstrate a significant bias and lack of basis in statistics or medicine. The source cited only offers the citation of another source which is unverified. Users have posted no discussion as to the significance of the section nor their contribution to this article. Their inclusion is blatant racism and is completely inapproriate. The inclusion of race in a section titled penis size and condom use seems particularly unnecessary when sources cited conclude no statistical significance. This is a ridiculous masking of malice through faulty quotation and poor citation. These sections do not contribute to understanding the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Information about penis size and race should be kept in that section. Information specific to penis size and it's effect on condom use is ambiguous, does penis size correlate with frequency of using condoms or rather their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and disease transmission. A bigger penis apparently tends have more condom failure resulting from breakage, whereas a smaller one tends to have more from slippage. Read the sources if you're unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Race and Penis Size

This section exludes information about hispanic/latino men. The sources cited are a seemingly random assortment of studies, none of which discuss hispanics/latinos to any extent, nor do they provide conclusive, statistically significant findings. The mess in this section is equivalent to googling the words penis, size, and race, and picking the top results and copying and pasting. The wikipedia article on race also identifies many other groups not clearly defined as part of any of the current sources. What are some of them considered? the Indians, Alaskan Natives, American Indians, Jews, Arabs, Northern or Eastern Europeans, East Africans, Indigenous Australians? Are any of these groups even represented by the current sources appearing in this section? We don't need to, nor can we discuss every group of people that consider themselves their own race, but this section is dire need of clean-up.