Talk:Human penis size

Overthinking?

This talk page is in parts more difficult to read then the article on Quantum electrodynamics. Could it perhaps just perhaps be the case that we as a society are overthinking the issue a little? ... Just saying.

Romans and Greeks laughed at men with large penis

Why is it that ancient Greek and Roman paintings, sculptures, and other works of art depict males with such small genitalia?

My first thought was that the artists wished to draw the viewer’s attention to other, more important, aspects of the work.

I mean c'mon ... men are men back then and now.

Guys are consumed with their penis size and how it compares to other men. Nobody, I mean nobody ... wants to have an average penis size.

Wouldn't the Greeks themselves be consumed with their size and perhaps fudge things a little?

It's Greek to Me ... You remember the Greeks, right?.

They were the guys (and it was mostly guys—women at the time were mainly relegated to childbearing and housekeeping or sex objecthood, and were seldom heard from) who pretty much invented what we now think of as Western civilization.

Their ideas about culture and society, which the Romans copied, influence us to this day. The Greeks also … well, we’ll get into a discussion of Greek sexual preferences some other time. For now let’s just say they were fascinated by male beauty, and in particular by (ahem) the penis.

The First Nudie Awards The Greeks weren’t shy about displaying their manly attributes. Nudity was celebrated in Greece as in no culture before or since. We’re so used to nude classical sculpture and painting that we figure that’s how everybody walked around back in those days. In fact, however, male nudity in art and among athletes and warriors was largely confined to the ancient Greeks, for whom it became a point of pride—they considered embarrassment at having to disrobe for sports a sign of barbarism. Admiration of the manly form at times verged on the cultlike; the more heroic bits of male sculpture, small penis or no, have an erotic charge that can make even a straight male sweat. Naked women were depicted too, but less often, and you sometimes get the feeling the artist’s heart wasn’t in it.

The penis shows up in Greek art a lot—big ones as well as small ones. For example, there’s the temple of Dionysus on the island of Delos, which features giant stone penises carved in the third century BC. Decapitated now, they’re still impressively scaled and in a state of salute. (The academic term describing this condition, incidentally, is ithyphallic.)

Penis Art Sculptural depictions of the erect penis were an everyday sight in the classical world. A common boundary marker and household totem in ancient Greece was the herm, originally a representation of the god Hermes. It consisted of a head on top of a simple squarish pillar—your basic supersized Pez dispenser—unadorned except for, in front, an amply proportioned, usually erect, and sometimes arrestingly protrusive penis and scrotum.

Scholars tell us that such decorations were apotropaic (you learn a lot of vocabulary in this field)—that is, intended to ward off evil, and that folks back then paid no more attention to them than we would to a lucky horseshoe.

Maybe. Maybe not.

All I’m saying is, stuff that even now we’d consider hard-core porn you saw then just walking down to the Piraeus.

The ancients were also unembarrassed by graphic displays of sex. Greek men—to be precise, male Greek aristocrats—figured if it moved, they could have sex with it, or at least look at pictures about having sex with it. We have countless examples of crockery showing various combinations of humans, deities, and the occasional animal engaged in the amatory act, most of it presumably used as party favors to put the lads in the mood. Even in painterly scenes having nothing to do with sex, the genitalia were often conspicuously displayed.

From this vast array of XXX-rated artwork we can make a few deductions about Greek aesthetic preferences ... genitaliawise:

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.

Of course, we do have to take into account a contributing factor for those greek statues looking the way they do: Artists’ models were nude, and their studios lacked central heat. [1]

Large penis = grotesque and comic, found on animals and barbarians

Grotesque is "distorted and unnatural in shape or size; abnormal and hideous"

From this vast array of XXX-rated artwork we can make a few deductions about Greek aesthetic preferences ... genitaliawise:

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.

Average penis size and race

Does average penis size really vary between the races? Or is that just a myth? If it's true, it should be mentioned in the article. Voortle (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• A quick search reveals this page http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=366192 which quotes from a previous version of the main article. What happened to the quoted section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.49.25 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Related medical journals have found no correlation between race and penis size. For example, in 2006, the British Journal of Urology found no differences in penis size between races. http://www.livescience.com/health/070601_penis_myths.html The only thing that states differences are self reported surveys, unscientific surveys, and unscientific research. For example, in the google link you posted above, some of the results are even stated to be highly flawed or based on self selection including internet polls. Furthermore, the results even contradict each other. Obviously, that is not reliable and you can see why it would not meet Wikipedia's standards. TheLou75 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then regardless, that should be mentioned as well. I get the impression that this is considered an "impolite" topic to bring up, and yet it is really a very influential set of myths about race. Ideas about penis size are very common, in places as far afield as China. Passing over it in silence will not make it go away. And the link that you posted did not provide numbers. Scanning Google Scholar I've found various studies that were contradictory.

A quick scan on PubMed brought up some results that argue that there are differences of some kind, at least. Here and Here, plus one from Google Scholar Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.40.143 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How does penis size of newborns even matter since its prior to puberty? Even then the first source says that differences existed until 5 years of age and then no differences. The last source seems to be from an afrocentric site too so I wouldn't even consider it.And of course, like you said, research is contradictory. If thats the case then we have to wait until a definitive study that is widely accepted is done before concluding what correct or incorrect. GreenWave254 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing on this topic, I've tagged to following with an "unreliable source" tag:

Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific relation between penis size and race.

Sources:

Adams, Michael V (1996). The multicultural imagination: race, color, and the unconscious. London: Routledge. p. 164. ISBN 041513837X.

"Penis Myths Debunked". LiveScience. June 1, 2007.

I am not disputing what the sentence says, but I am disputing the sources. The first is an identity politics/cultural studies book and the second is some random "science" website. Neither rises to the level of reliable source for what is basically a biomedical question. References should be to medical textbooks and journals. The subject probably deserves more than one sentence, considering the amount of popular beliefs of the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed it all together since biomedical articles shouldn't be making speculation but instead be based on conclusive reliable study that is widely accepted by the medical and scientific study. Once such a study is completed, it can be included. Otherwise, content in support or against it shouldn't be included as it would be unencyclopedic. TheLou75 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Further research is called for, but at a glance, the ScienceLive info is likely to have relied not on the UG journal they cite, but on the description of it in the singled-out 1st entry of the penis-size bibilography of Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. We should not rely on either of them, but Kinsey is far more reliable than ScienceLive, KIRSGR's endorsement of journal's review article is compelling, and perhaps most to the point, KIRSGR, being a scholarly source, has given us a specific citation within the journal, rather than just joking about what the title means, as ScienceLive did at one point in mentioning it. So we can, with some effort, go read the journal article -- probably, worst case, in a med school library.
  --Jerzy•t 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  

The assertion that mean penis size does not vary between racial groups is highly dubious. A quick glance through the literature suggests quite the opposite; indeed, sub-Saharan Africans possess the largest penises on average, followed by Caucasians, followed by East Asians. This is a topic that many individuals are curious about and it oughtn't to be swept aside for ideological reasons. --Mr. Deltoid (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, no medical journal or science journal has found any correlation. The only studies done were pre 1950 and were heavily influenced by eugenics as well as other racial research (ie trying to prove that African Americans were not human) which has since proven to be false and is not accepted academically or by the medical community. For example, much of the Kinsey studies have been rejected by the scientific community for using flawed testing procedures. And a lot of this had to do with a racial bias agenda back then. Karot24g (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there must have been studies by the World Health Organization. During the height of the Rushton IQ/penis size debate the Toronto Globe & Mail quietly reported that 40 mm condoms were distributed in Asia, 55 mm in Europe, and 70 mm in Africa. This was pre-internet at the Globe & Mail, so I can't find the source. This is probably not fine grained enough. I expect size varies within these regions by ethnic group. The backwards politically correct reasoning that we all should be the same so we are all the same and if you say different you are a racist is thankfully dead. Incidentallly, I noticed in my misspent youth that the mons and vagina of females vary markedly by race as well, and erm, I had a statistically significant sample. Is it even likely that a typical Thai would be built like a Zulu? Testoterone levels, age of onset of puberty, physique, and abilities vary greatly between races - despite the wishes of Stephen Jay Gould (who was raised in a Marxist Houshold). 173.178.16.2 (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Rushton is a supporter of eugenics and argued that brain size of blacks was smaller than whites. He made some other absurd claims as well. Furthermore, Rushton never had statisically valid evidence to back up his claims. No one accepts Rushton as fact. In fact, Rushton's claims have been rejected by the scientific community. As for the Toronto Globe & Mail, a journalist's claims are never considered a valid reference, especially in the context of a science/medical entry. I have seen too much inaccurate reporting in newspaper articles as of late. Karot24g (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its rather absurd to categorize all Caucasians, all Asians, all Africans, and all Hispanics into categories as there are huge difference within each category. A Russian is not going to look the same as a Greek. Likewise a Chinese man is not going to look the same as a Tibetan. Likewise, an African from Liberia is not going to look the same as an African from South Africa. Likewise, an African is not going to look the same as a 5th generation African American. Any study that groups each into a category is going to be highly dubious unless they took 1,000 people from each region. A regional study would probably be the only valid study and there has been no regional study which uses a scientiically valid sample size. It's things like this that amaze me as this seems like common sense. Mohom987 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this conflicting piece on the internet although it is by country, not race, It seems to play heavily. File:C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Bo\pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxk21 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read over dozens of studies from different countries on penis length. My conclusion is that there is no difference between ethnic groups. A study of 3000 Italian soldiers came up with about 13.4 centimeters. A Chinese study of 2547 college students for entrance physical examination came up with 13.43 centimeters. I specifically mention these two studies as they have the largest sample sizes. Regarding Blacks, there has only been one study where the statistics did not come from self-measurement; a Nigerian study of 115 men came up with 13.37 centimeters. I should also mention that the vast majority of "world penis size" comparison charts or even research you see on the internet bases their East Asian statistics on one single South Korean study. I have found a different South Korean study (sample size of 150) that showed an average of 13.42 centimeters.

Italian study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223678?dopt=Abstract

Chinese study: http://dropcanvas.com/5vpeq/5 or http://depositfiles.com/files/9qrckqn20

Nigerian study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17191423?dopt=AbstractPlus

South Korean study: http://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?RID=1020KJU/1998.39.11.1061&DT=1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.122.134 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2012(UTC)

My partner is half Chinese and has a penis that is slightly over 6 inches in length. Apparently that's above average. Of course, he's just one guy and may be an exception. In pro porno I see some East Asian men with seemingly smaller penises and some larger (like 7+ inches), although white men in pro porno more often have big dicks, and black men even bigger. If there is a difference though, we need to draw not from porno or unfounded media stereotypes, but reliable scientific studies (e.g. appropriate methodology, sufficient samples, etc.), and so far none of the studies posted that purport the differences meet the criteria. --Humorideas (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is Bias towards promoting a Large Penis as desirable

The article isn't balanced on the fact that not all view a large penis as desirable. The fact that "Long, thick penises were considered ... at least in the highbrow view ... grotesque, comic, or both" is downplayed and more empysis is given towards a Large & Long penis.

I disagree. It's just copied facts from other pages online/studies from what I am seeing. Then again you might be proving much of the article correct by showing jealousy over the size of a penis and not wanting to be viewed as average or small. Men make a big deal about defending it. . . seems it's correct.

Penis size vs. Length of the Vagina

The vagina is only about 3 (7.5cm) to 4 (10cm) inches long, and even a small penis can touch every square centimeter within the vagina.

Virtually every man forgets that it doesn't matter how long or how short your penis is, because the vagina will accommodate itself to any length. The vagina of a woman who hasn't had a child is only 7.5cm (3 inches) long when she's not sexually excited. The figures for women who have had babies are only slightly different.

Even when aroused, a woman's vagina usually extends only to a length of about 10cm (4 inches).

This means any man's penis will fill her vagina completely, unless you happen to be one of those rare guys with an erect penile length of less than four inches.

You're probably now wondering how the average man with an erection of six inches manages to insert his penis into the vagina at all.

The vagina has the most remarkable capacity for lengthening if something is introduced into it gradually.

So the exceptional man whose erect penis is eight inches (20cm) long can still make love to any woman, providing he excites her properly and introduces his organ very slowly. If he does this, her vagina will lengthen by 150 or 200 per cent to accommodate him.

Penis size & Pleasing a women

Many women report that too many men are hung up on the size of their penises. The vagina is only about five inches long, and even a small penis can touch every square centimeter within the vagina. The secret to pleasing and impressing a woman sexually has nothing to do with penis size. Instead, concentrate on the movements, and rhythms of your thrusts. Most women will agree that penis size is not enough to please them. So men need to stop worrying about penis size and concentrate on technique. [2]

Image - Possible NPOV Violation

By showing only circumcised penises i believe this article constitutes a violation of the NPOV policy by suggesting that circumcised penises are normal. For the vast majority of the world they are't, and in fact statistically for English speaking countries they are not (anymore). Images of both should be shown, maybe even find some statistics that show whether or not there is a difference in average length between "cut" and "uncut" 173.18.214.8 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a bit stretching it. I'll restore the pic until a consensus is reached. JerseyShore223 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the penis is uncircumcised until molested by lunatics. 86.44.152.106 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture was there to illustrate the variation in human penis size, and thats what the article is about. If the "owners" of these penises are circumcised or not is negligible. This has nothing to do with NPOV, nothing is claimed here. And last but not least: why would there be a difference in average length between "cut" and "uncut"?? If you count the foreskin, than yes, the uncut will be longer. But isn't that trivial?--Lamilli (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the image does not belong here at all. The article isn't about "variations in penis size". If it was, it would be the perfect image. The article deals with human penis size in general, including subjects such as enlargement, perception, condom use, measuring, development over age etc. I think the article is better without it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does have a Variance in penis size section, and a well made image comparing sizes and showing clinical methods of measurement would be useful, but the image in question, a collage with varying perspectives, is not beneficial to the article. -- 110.49.241.13 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1001/archpedi.1943.02010160019003 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gay men reporting larger (longer) penis size

Considering the fitness standards for beauty in gay culture push a much lower body fat percentage (see Northeastern University's health study http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2010/06/ConronHealthDisparities.html) and that men lose some of their penile length - or at least have it hidden - by the pad of pubic fat at the base of the penis, it shouldn't be surprising to see gay men reporting greater length.

If you're leaner, you're longer. 69.47.134.171 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone might be a bit jealous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon W. Helms (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture Removal

Why was the main picture removed? Every Wikipedia page should have a main picture of the subject that is under discussion. Possibly a large conglomerate of various penis pictures should be in order to cover different demographics, sizes, and shapes. This would vividly illustrate the topic at hand and allow viewers from many different nations to gain new visual perspectives.

Where's the stuff on race?

I simply can't believe that race is not mentioned in this article. I don't personally know for a fact whether or not race makes a difference, but obviously that's what many (if not a majority) of people come here hoping to find out. Whether it's a factor or not, this article needs to address it. 98.82.196.213 (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC) In fact, average male penis of Indians and pakistanis is about 5.9 inches whereas those of other races Hispanics Australians(mixed blood) is more than 6.5 inches. Somehow a grith too less or a length of less than 6.35 inches is not healthy enough, given today's male sizes. It affects the male and female psyche(consider the taboo of BJ)

Agreed. Studies on the subject may be unreliable or conrtadictory, but people certainly have a lot of ideas about how penis size relates to race. Even if studies cannot be found at least the myths should be discussed somewhat. 206.248.130.48 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such needs to be held to the same standards. You won't see any respectable encyclopedia discussing myths, only facts should be discussed. You said it yourself, the studies are unreliable and contradictory, so why would they be included? Wikipedia states that only reliable information should be included. Karot24g (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you would. Encyclopedia are supposed to discuss myths that are important and widely held.--178.167.200.101 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "studies are conflicting", as per http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm. LiteralKa (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing on race because there's no scientific data about it -- only rumors, speculation and fantasy. Those studies that took incidental notice of race showed variances were insignificant. 76.113.64.124 (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh really?? Thats utter nonsense. If you spend the time googling or reading up, you will find there is research paper after paper relying on spectral analysis and rigorously correalated scientific data proving the difference in penis size between some of the races. This whole article is a sham and I dont have the time to correct all of it. The editors seem to have decided to disregard totally what the rest of us are thinking and more importantly the wider evidence/research into penis size which we all know reaches very different conclusions. This article should be scrubbed and restarted.

The bbc article is actually highly misleading. I think it's a propaganda piece, or perhaps just very poorly written. The international size that it references which was "too big for Indian men" was something like 6-7 inches. International sizes are on average too big for average men, anywhere. This same article could be written to target any ethnic group.

That's ridiculously PC. Call it race, geographic distribution or whatever, but here is a non-documented, non-academic yet utterly true and obvious fact: french condoms are so big that 50% of the time, I have to retrieve it with my finger from women's vaginas. On the other end, asia's (I tried Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan and Indonesia) are so small that they explode in about 30% of the case. The vagina (and woman attached) was the same in most of the case.

Yet, French people (exept for me) seems OK with french condoms and Chinese are OK with chinese condoms. And I have to deal with the fact that in some countries, I need magnum size and in others, the "cute" one.

Do wikipedia need 5 different studies from major universities to acknowledge that the standard size of condoms is not the same in Algeria than in India while those data are public????? --Madlozoz (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the data? Show us the sources. It cannot be your data because Wikipedia does not publish original research. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Asian part of the data. Here is the photo of 2 model of condoms I just bought in Medan, Indonesia. Unfortunatly, this side show technical data in english, but not the model name. The one on the left is "Confort" (meaning big size) while the one one the right is "Together". "Together" brand seems to be specific to asia, and durex website descibe them as "regular" codoms. The box indicate a nominal width of 52.5mm.

Now, if someone can go to the local convenient store to take photos of local Durex condoms... I think it should display about 65mm in USA.

Note: those condoms are bulb-shaped and the indicated width is the maximum one. Otherwise, 52.5 would be huge.--Madlozoz (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional info: the side of the box indicate those condom are made in Thailand and imported for indonesian marcket. The whole packaging is in english (except the indonesian "diimport") as I guess the same model is sold in many asian countries.

And if the data you where asking for is a close-up of my girlfriend vagina with my condom stuck in it, those are confidential photographs--Madlozoz (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That is original synthesis. If a reliable source remarked on this, it could be inserted into the page. Wikipedia editors cannot look at some set of facts and then draw conclusions; we can only summarize the conclusions of others. I did not realize a reply was posted so I'm replying now... OSborn ^arf_contribs. 06:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Basing average penis measurements on your experience of the sizes of some condoms you bought in two countries is not enough to pass as a reliable scientific test. :(

FWIW, my partner is half Chinese and has a penis that is slightly over 6 inches in length. Apparently that's above average. Of course, he's just one guy and may be an exception. In pro porno I see some East Asian men with seemingly smaller penises and some larger (like 7+ inches), although white men in pro porno more often have big dicks, and black men even bigger.

If there is a difference though, we need to draw not from porno or unfounded media stereotypes, but reliable scientific studies (e.g. appropriate methodology, sufficient samples, etc.), and so far none of the studies posted that purport the differences meet the criteria. --Humorideas (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo

I don't know how to correct a typo on a semi-protected article, so I'll just post it here and hope that someone with administrative rights can correct it.

Under Variance in penis size > Environmental influence on penis size, the sentence

Both Polychlorinated biphenylPCBs and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size.

should be

Both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size. --128.59.46.218 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Or this:

Both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) have been associated with smaller penis size.

Fixed. I replaced the typo with just "PCBs", and made it a link to the page that expands it. Joule36e5 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rural penises

According to a study published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine males from the countryside have larger penises than urban males.[3] __meco (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference in mean sizes was .4 cm which translates to 0.157480315 inches. I wouldn't call that significant. Not to mention the study was in Bulgeria. Gateway393 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Put hyperlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-Foot-Genital_Syndrome where missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe33 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to my edit

"Deleted unsuitable reference and substituted citation required. 'Trash' reference was not from medical or other research but rather a 2nd hand quote in a politically-charged book"

Suitable references to penis size and race are required. I'm surprised that there aren't ten proper references, since many actual studies have been done.

The reference I deleted was the most inappropriate that I've ever seen, not only in that it's a highly controversial examination of psychology and politics, but the actual quote was second-hand hearsay from an author named Fanon who, to quote from the deleted reference, "is a revolutionary who applies Freudian, Adlerian and Jungian analysis, Sartrian existentialism, and Marxist ideology to criticize colonialism, imperialism, and racism." Read for yourself: [4] ~~Markus451

Few, IF ANY, scientific surveys have been done specifically looking at penis size and race. That's why you can't cite any.

Edit request from 218.208.232.237, 5 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

218.208.232.237 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Extreme Bias...

I am guessing it is because it would be considered racist but there is a difference in average size amongst races. There has been numerous studies that contradict the statements of article. The authors simply decided to ignore the other research to promote the concept of human equality... Based on my observations of the research of race and size, there is virtually equal range in between each race however the average and median differ significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.182 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, every SCIENTIFIC study on penis size says differences among races are grossly exagerrated and essentially none exists. Your opening sentence is grammatically flawed and you cite no sources. Please don't waste our time any further with old wives tales.

Measued from where to where?

Surely the article should state where the measurements were taken from. Were they from the torso to the tip or from the front of scrotum to the tip, or some other measurement?--178.167.200.101 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The measuring method should be mentioned. 95.194.105.1 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard way seems to be to put the ruler snug against the pelvic bone and measure horizontally to the tip.

85.227.192.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Flaccid or erect?

In regards to Human_penis_size#Studies_on_penis_size, the 'other source' gives stats for soft and erect. The averages given to start off this section only contain one set of statistics though. Is it fair to assume these are erect values or could they possibly be flaccid ones? I'm not sure what to think, I'm just going by how it says 1.54 diameter whereas the pair gave 1.5 while erect, so it would be more similar that way and explain the higher sizes. DB (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Human penis size

"Fear of shrinking of the penis in folklore have led to a type of mass hysteria called penis panic, though the penis legitimately can shrink in size due to scar tissue formation in the penis from a medical condition called Peyronie's disease."

first note here is that I can't edit on semi-protected pages so i am commenting here and hoping someone else will post. there are other things that can legitimately shrink penis size, such as anti-hormone therapy. here is the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162022

I had this happened to me when I stopped cold on steroids, aggain I am not saying that steroids shrink the penis, since they just replace exogenous testosterone with endogenous testosterone. but what I am saying is a massive sudden decrease in LH and testosterone can cause penile shrinkage and yes the prostate cancer patients did undergo radiation, but read the article again. that was 7 months into treatment by then they had already lost 4 cm. of 1 and half inches. sorry to disappoint you, but it is a fact that suppression of LH and no testosterone replacement can shrink the penis and does. I feel this should be posted, but I am not a good enough user yet to post it.

Edit request from Jtmoy19607, 30 May 2011

I posted this in the talk section of human penis size also. I am new to editing wikipedia...but I want to get the word out on this article and link.

"Fear of shrinking of the penis in folklore have led to a type of mass hysteria called penis panic, though the penis legitimately can shrink in size due to scar tissue formation in the penis from a medical condition called Peyronie's disease."

first note here is that I can't edit on semi-protected pages so i am commenting here and hoping someone else will post. there are other things that can legitimately shrink penis size, such as anti-hormone therapy. here is the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162022

I had this happened to me when I stopped cold on steroids, aggain I am not saying that steroids shrink the penis, since they just replace exogenous testosterone with endogenous testosterone. but what I am saying is a massive sudden decrease in LH and testosterone can cause penile shrinkage and yes the prostate cancer patients did undergo radiation, but read the article again. that was 7 months into treatment by then they had already lost 4 cm. of 1 and half inches. sorry to disappoint you, but it is a fact that suppression of LH and no testosterone replacement can shrink the penis and does. I feel this should be posted, but I am not a good enough user yet to post it.

to also make my case for putting this in human penis size. We can't say this about chemical or environmental endocrine disruptors "Both Polychlorinated biphenylPCBs and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size" and then ignore hormonal endocrine disruptors, yes, they interfere during early development, and not during adults, but that is probably because it isn't a high enough dosage of chemical or environmental disruptors, the LH disruptors (leuprolide acetate or goserelin) are potent and crash testosterone levels, very few things do this to adult men, even pituitary tumors will slowly decrease LH and testosterone and not crash them like LH agonists will. My point is you can't say these endocrine disruptors interfere with penis size and then say other endocrine disruption does not.

please contact me with any questions 

Jtmoy19607 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I have done the bit referenced to the University of Ankara, I know little about the subject so have left the rest for someone who is more informed.

Can you provide some reliable sources for the other claims? — Bility (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jtmoy19607, 31 May 2011

Fear of shrinking of the penis in folklore have led to a type of mass hysteria called penis panic, though the penis legitimately can shrink in size due to scar tissue formation in the penis from a medical condition called Peyronie's disease. The penis has also been shown to shrink due to the decreasing levels of Luteinizing hormone and testosterone as a result of treatment for prostate cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162022 The androgen suppression was done by the use of the anti-androgen Bicalutamide for 10 days followed by a luteinizing hormone releasing agonist and after 6 months of this the average patient's stretched penile's length lost 3.5 cm, well over an inch. A month later, while testosterone was still suppressed, radiation was added to the treatment possibly increasing the shrinkage more. After 18 months of the combination of anti-androgen treatment and radiation, stretched penile length changed from 14.2 cm to 8.6 cm. So, it appears that a quick suppression of endogenous testosterone without replacing it with external testosterone will lead to shrinkage. It is important to note the quick drop in androgen and not the slow drop that occurs over a lifetime. Jtmoy19607 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) personal note, this will help me with my medical treatment.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--wintonian ^talk 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by reliable sources as NIH is reliable...but it was also published in the journal of urology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmoy19607 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/MensHlth/Penis/Penile_Length_Changes_in_Men_Treated_with_Androgen_Suppression_Plus_Radiation_Therapy_for_Local_or_Locally_Advanced_Prostate_Cancer.pdf

Penis size

there is no such research on penis size in Saudi Arabia Dr.Habos himself denies that number. The 12.4 associated with average Saudi penis size is a world average number.

Edit request from 190.159.187.70, 7 June 2011

Colombia is mispelt as "Columbia" in the Eduardo Gomez's chart, the source clearly makes this mistake but both sources seem to refer to the country. --190.159.187.70 (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.Can't see this in the article - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The chart seemed to be spam, and it was subsequently removed by another user. [5] Thanks anyway. --190.157.238.103 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section 'Historical Perceptions' the word "barbarian" should be changed to "foreigner." In Ancient Greece the word barbarian simply meant non-Greek & did not carry the same connotations as it does today. The word "foreigner" is therefore more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.186.30 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You cannot change words used in a direct quote. Furthermore it's a modern source anyway. However I have linked to the article so people can get a better idea of what the word means in that context if they aren't aware. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How is measurement taken?

Nowhere is it mentioned how a measuremet is taken. I suspect that many come here to see how their own measurment compares to the average. Is there a medical "standard procedure"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.163.44.102 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/02/on_the_matter_of_size.html

Milkunderwood (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Edit

A 2007 study by University of Ankara, Faculty of Medicine has found that penile size my decrease as a result of some hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiation therapy.

It should read: A 2007 study by University of Ankara, Faculty of Medicine has found that penile size may decrease as a result of some hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiation therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htennyson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In some studies i read about bone-pressed length - which seems logical as it is the only method to messure guys with some fat on the pubic bone. It is simply measuring on top of the penis (not the side or under the penis) - pressed to the pubic bone. For example i read that Lifestyle did it like that.

Penis size and size of other body parts

The current section on this is weak, and would be strengthened by including the information contained in the following reputable secondary source, or going back to the research referenced there: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-finger-ratio-penis-length-20110704,0,7466505.story 24.205.76.240 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

List of penis size between countries

I found on few websites the list of penis size (length) by countries. Can I put it here? Those websites are reliable source. --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are notable and reliable, try it. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

"A 2007 study by University of Ankara, Faculty of Medicine has found that penile size my decrease as a result of some hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiation therapy." It should be "may", I think. Sam113101 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for catching this. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

In the second paragraph of the introduction it says "Circumcised men are on average 8 millimeters shorter in terms of erect length compared to their intact counterparts," and it gives a source which is an exert from a book. But when researched, there are sources that beg the differ on that subject, that there is no adverse effect on size. Here's one of many sources. http://www.circinfo.net/Circumcision_and_penis_length.html

Do you have a link to any of these sources that differ? The reasoning behind the claim is valid, and I've personally checked the source listed in the book. Rip-Saw (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Excerpts from published sources

A number of excerpts from the scientific literature that may be of general interest, addressing comparative genitalia sizes, may be found in a discussion of Sexual Organs and Heterochronic Theory [6]. (However, this website itself is not suitable for WP:CITE; authoritative references would need to be found in the original publications.) Milkunderwood (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaty penis vs blood filled penis

Is this just a myth? Found this: A so-called „meaty penis“ does not grow significantly during an erection and its size remains almost the same. During an erection, a so-called „blood filled penis“ is much larger than in its non-erect state. A penis is classified as a „meaty penis“ when it only grows up to 1.9 times during an erection, i.e. barely doubles in length. If the penis more than doubles (original length times 2) during an erection, it is classified as a „blood filled penis“. --188.108.112.210 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon initial inspection, those appear to be just terms that classify the growth in size of the penis during erection. As for whether what is suggested by the terms' titles - i.e. that such penises are necessarily 'meaty' or 'blood-filled' relative to other penises - is true, that's a good question. Is there a reliable study? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the following should be removed.

I think this statement-For women, width rather than length is a more important factor of sexual stimulation- should be removed. I know it has a source, but the way the statement is worded makes it sound like that it is absolute gospel truth that all females prefer width over length. Also the problem I see with the source is that in the study they only used 50 women. I know there is no way to ask every woman on the planet if they prefer width over length, so maybe the statement should be removed altogether, or maybe it should be worded to say something along the lines of- In 2001, a study at the University of Texas-Pan American asked 50 sexually active female students if they prefered width over length, with the results being 45 of the 50 reported width was more important. Actually I think the whole statement that women prefer width over length should be removed since there will never be a definite answer on this. Can you imagine if the same thing was said on a page about the female vagina? For example- For men, a wider vagina is a more important factor of sexual stimulation. Can you see how ridiculous that sounds? Please someone just remove the entire statement about women preferring width. I cannot remove it because the article is locked.--BeckiGreen (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:-) Becki, the entire article - and this being just one of many such - reads as though it is written by obsessed adolescent boys. As far as I can determine, qualified sexologists and urologists scrupulously stay away from articles like this. It probably isn't worth bothering with trying to improve it. Frankly, this is undoubtedly a more useful article - which also addresses your hypothetical. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think wikipedia policy on sources states that if a source is reliable, whatever content is found in it can be used in the article even if not true, per the "verifiability, not truth" rule. Much of the article is rampant editorializing, it would be better if the history of anthropologists in the eighteenth century and their studies on penis size be inlcuded in the article, just other discredited theories about human skull measurements are available at the articles on human races etc. There were serious anthropologists who studied the topic of race and penis size 100 years ago and their theories are disproven today like the theories on race and skull size.Uweido (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be copyright free material available from nineteenth century anthropologist's studies on penis size, They can be quoted in the article. I will return to this subject later.Uweido (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While talking about the perceptions "among gay men", I reviewed the complaint that Becki made. The method used in the experiment was as follows, ask two males on a college campus to ask 50 girls, "In having sex, which feels better, length of penis or width of penis?" Reading this question, I'm not sure if this means with any penis which feels better or with an increase of one or both which feels better, among other interpretations. The researchers then suggest that since 45 of them said width and 5 said length, the former could be important, suggesting further research to add on to the extensive research done by Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, which said both might be of minor importance. Therefore, Becki is correct, the wording of the statement is ambiguous as is the experiment itself. Later in this section, a quote from Psychology Today is not even quoted correctly. Then, the term size queen is not defined correctly by the citation provided. (Y26Z3 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Perceptions

In the section "Among gay men", the science is incorrect. It is said, "One potential explanation given is a difference in the exposure to androgen hormones in the developing embryo." It has been suggested in scientific literature that deprivation of androgen may lead to homosexual behavior, while exposure to androgen leads to the development of male features. Thus, the article cited is not referring specifically to androgen when it says "'It might have something to do with prenatal hormones that affect the structure and size of genitalia and certain structures of the brain that ultimately affect sexual orientation...'". Second, the article cited does not address whether the difference is statistically significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y26Z3 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Here is one article that addresses the role of androgen on reproductive development, The effect of dihydrotestosterone exposure during or prior to the masculinization programming window on reproductive development in male and female rats.(Y26Z3 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Questionable Consensus

This source provides a different consensus on human penis size, Sexuality Article. Who disagrees with that? There may need to be stated a different consensus. (Y26Z3 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

Queen Size Penis

I don't think the last edit by Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker is accurate. The whole purpose of the word "queen" is to make it a play on words for gay/bisexual men. Generalizing it to include women with "anyone" makes it lose its meaning. Also the citation listed no longer is valid if it is altered to "anyone." JVB

Done - thanks for pointing it out. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

While the term size queen usually refers to gay or bisexual males, women (gay, bisexual or straight) can also be (and are!) called size queens. Nevertheless, the sentence should at least be changed to read: "The term size queen is slang for gay or bisexual men who prefer their sexual partners to have larger-than-average penises" or "The term size queen is slang for a gay or bisexual man who prefers his sexual partner(s) to have a larger-than-average penis" because "man" and "their" are currently at odds. Vandemark (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, there was a U.S documentary on size-queens several years ago, none of which were gay/bisexual, you are just hiding the fact (for the benefit of male heterosexual readers) that this is important for some women. There are even heterosexual web-sites devoted to this search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.73.107 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I've never heard the term "Size Queen" used to exclusively mean gay or bisexual men. I don't have a source to make the edit, but if someone does that would improve this section. 76.64.118.127 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)BCC

Edit request on 11 June 2012

the human penis size consider by the doctor is only "1"inc .i personally discussed with several doctor about he same thing

Zasssy (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done I don't understand your request; are you trying to say the average length is 1 inch? This is not the case. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to submit an edit request however I thought the statement that penis size does not decrease with age incorrect. http://men.webmd.com/guide/life-cycle-of-a-penis AND http://www.sexualtips.net/penis_size_questions_and_answers.htm.

Penis Size Shrinking??

This link provides a news article (the Moscow news in English) that cites a study that states penis size is progressively shrinking in certain ethnic populations. If someone can find the original journal article, perhaps it can fit in here.Tropic of Capricorn (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Link needs fixing

In the section "Comparison to other primates" the link to Implications of differences in penis length and morphology need to be changed to Sexual anatomy.--109.152.242.28 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seek Consensus: Add a Specific Paragraph about Size Measure

This article keeps mentioning "measured by staff" but never clarifies exactly how the staff measurement method works. It will be helpful if a reliable method can be introduced so readers can judge their own size in a more scientific way. So here I suggest to add below new Paragraph to the article:

Measurement

The way of penis size measurement varies. In scientific studies, a commonly used method is: Stand up straight. For length, press the ruler or measuring tape firmly into the pubic bone, measure along the top of the penis from base to tip (not along the side or bottom). For circumference, measure around the thickest part of the shaft (below the glans penis) using a measuring tape.

Maybe above text doesn't match the WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR, but I believe there can be a way to convert it into good format. Anyone supports this please suggest. Thanks. Moscowsky^-talk- 03:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of detailing the measurement, maybe you can simply describe the usual defination of penis length and girth, with some reference. --PontMarcheur (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add a "how to measure your penis" section. Do not lead readers to assume that any particular method has been used for all studies. It should be obvious that any particular study is worthless unless the method of measuring size is given. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Any particular study is worthless unless the method of measuring size is given"? Then where are the given method? Without mentioning the measure method, all the figures is pointless. All the texts about different studies should briefly mention its measurement method, else how readers compare with their own size? BTW, the 4 big graphs in the article seem made up without reference, it will be removed soon if there is no clarifications, a new section has been created for that. Someone seems having a really strong standard for WP:OR, then please do not forget going there and support the removal. Moscowsky^-talk- 00:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Each study will have its own method, which must be detailed in the study itself, not here. This article is about "human penis size" in general. It is not intended to enable readers to determine where any given penis lies in the range of all possible penis sizes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I start to agree Pontmarcheur's comment above. Disregarding the methods, the definition of "penis length" and "penis circumference" is never clarified in this article, which is the key problem. Please always remember that penis is an irregular shaped human organ, not a brick or a metal bar, the "size" parameters of it must be well described in an objective way, else all the other words are without basis. Penis size article without telling readers how the penis size is defined is unacceptable. Moscowsky^-talk- 05:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you should start looking for reliable sources which expressly state that there is a generally accepted method, rather than making up your own. You should also be prepared to note how that general method differs from the method used in any particular study if you intend to use the numbers found in that study in this article. Please post your proposed changes here for discussion to save me the trouble of reverting you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Moscowsky to drop this topic and start a new section just about the general concepts about lenghth/circumference. Words like "do not...do not..." and "save trouble of reverting" really disturbs me here. I can see why this talk page is not welcomed. Nobody has the right to revert other people's edit freely. As long as the edit has good format and reference, you'll get all the support for realization. --PontMarcheur (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pontmarcheur. I'm disregarding this section. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Seek Consensus: Add a New Leading Image

File:Erect penis measurement.png

Size of human penis

I suggest to add the image on the right as leading picture. It is a clear picture and illustrate the size parameters of human penis well. This article is popular and should not lack a leading picture with helpful information. Moscowsky^-talk- 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. It's constructive to add this picture, well match the topic. --PontMarcheur (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that readers will understand what length and circumference mean in relation to penis size. The illustration is wholly unnecessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there must be some people don't know how to assume their size especially length in the correct way. Adding this picture won't hurt anyone but will help somebody. Personal feelings like "I have no doubt" cannot be a good reason to reject it. Moscowsky^-talk- 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You think readers will have difficulty understanding how the terms "length" and "circumference" apply to a penis? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, especially for ones that don't learn much about penis. Do you think readers will have misunderstanding of the term "penis"? Exactly yes, someone even believes scrotum is part of the penis and should be counted in length. The wikipedia human page has leading photo of humans, why? because that's what the topic all about, most readers already know what human being looks like, but a leading picture will still be helpful, to reduce exceptional misunderstandings and enrich the article. Moscowsky^-talk- 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image introduces misunderstandings if the underlying studies have not measured in the way you illustrate. I think it is best to assume that a reader will be able to apply figure out that there is only one possible circumference of a cylindrical object. Let them read the actual study if they want to know how measurements were done. Again, this is not an article about how readers can measure penises, nor should it be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote to add the picture. All the studies in this article measured in the same way as the picture illustrates. -116.246.26.29 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced we actually need a picture, the argument could be made that this particular picture is not ideal anyway. There could be different ways of measuring human penis size. The picture represents one way of quantifying penis size which may not represent how everyone conceptualises or measures penis size. Lifeliver4 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole article keeps providing numbers of nothing else but length and circumference, and the picture matches the theme well. The pic implies the concept of length and circumference in a general way, nothing like a measurement method. ALL the studies mentioned in this article don't have any conflicts with the picture too. There're different lookings of human being, but why human page still has a leading picture of a specified race? does it mean the photo is "ideal"? No, just because it's well related to the topic. Moscowsky^-talk- 06:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could measure the flaccid penis as well as the erect one. Another issue I have is that penis size is just as much a psychologically perceived thing as it is a measurement. Size as we perceive it depends on what's around it (for example, body weight probably affects perception of size). However, I'll admit that the article is all about the type of length and circumference measures that your image shows, so I guess you could say the image is at least consistent with that. Lifeliver4 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This image is a good improvement.209.202.115.133 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is renewed per consensus above. --PontMarcheur (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image again. I suggest that if you wish to include it, you start a request for comment. Single purpose accounts and IP editors liking the image does not constitute a consensus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The change is well discussed and don't receive any proper reason for rejection. Not necessary to Request for Comment just for the personal preference of a single editor. request for comment is not a weapon to block the article from development just because yourself dislike it without good reason. Moscowsky^-talk- 14:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Delicious carbuncle to learn better about WP:DR. This change already received overwhelming supports, only one real objection received. The talk section is abundant enough. In such case, RFC is not necessary. Conversely, if you really don't like the change, it's yourself who can go to the offical WP:DR channel and try to gets more support, instead keeps reverting edits just for your own opnion. --PontMarcheur (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, I could start an RfC to get opinions of uninvolved editors, as I have done below. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture looks fine. I support inclusion in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ansell graphs

I would argue for taking off the Ansell graphs. As the sole graphic on the page, it really places a lot of emphasis on the Ansell data. The problem is that the Ansell survey is very far from being scientific, especially compared to the peer reviewed journal articles otherwise cited in the wikipedia article. Looking closely at the Ansell study, the sample size is very far from random -- guys coming out of a bar in Cancun. What's more, only 75% of the men who *volunteered* to have their penises measured actually ended up getting an erection for the study. I just don't think that we need to have 3 graphs of this unpublished and unpeer-reviewed data.

Moreover, where are these graphs coming from anyway? I can't find them anywhere on the Ansell site, and there's not enough information in the numeric statistics to generate complete frequency histograms and cumulative distributions. Without a reference, it kind of seems like they've been made up in MS Excel.

It's nice to have graphs, but we shouldn't non-referenced data which may not represent fact. That is we shouldn't have graphs just because we want graphs. Unless there are any strong objections, I will consider editing this part of the page.

Lifeliver4 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There're actually 4 graphs about length and circumference in this article, and yes, they seems all "self-made" without any reference or reliable source. Maybe they're all made up. If there is no clarifications, all those graphs should be removed according to WP:OR. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. All those charts look ridiculous to me from the very beginning, vote to remove-116.246.26.29 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the deletion. Serious-looking material without reliable reference must be cleared. --PontMarcheur (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The graphs should be removed.209.202.115.133 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The graphs are removed per consensus above. --PontMarcheur (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is an image illustrating "length" and "circumference" necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has proposed adding File:Erect penis measurement.png (an image they created themselves) to illustrate how the terms "length" and "circumference" apply to an erect penis. Is such an image necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To see the existent opinions for this topic, please refer to Talk:Human_penis_size#Seek_Consensus:_Add_a_New_Leading_Image. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, in my opinion this is a bit of a yawn. I really don't think that Wikipedia will stand or fall by our decision. It seems not unreasonable to include the picture, which does after all match the topic. Some people really are very visual and might understand the enormously challenging mathematics more easily if they have a picture to go by instead of having to wade through descriptive verbiage. At the same time, anyone who cannot easily understand that without the picture, probably is ill-equipped to make sense of the numbers anyway. The only part of the diagram that seems justified to me is the clear indication that the length is measured along the upper aspect of the penis. Once penis measurement is recognised as an Olympic sport, judges will discover that there are all sorts of complications entailed by demands for precise measurement, and I cannot wait to see the illustration that demonstrates how to measure the volume as well. JonRichfield (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

_{Volume would be determined by submerging the penis in a water bath and displaced volume measured. Of course the water temperature must be carefully controlled.... Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)}

Yup. My view exactly, though it is fun to think up alternative protocols and instrumentation. No doubt you have some ideas for suitable illustrations? Not my line, I am sorry to say. ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

JonRichfield, after viewing the image you have made the assumption that "the length is measured along the upper aspect of the penis". That may or may not be the case in any given survey (one would have to read the sources to know what method they used). This is one of the reasons why I do not support inclusion. It is both unnecessary and misleading to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm... You have a point. I had not bothered to check on the details applied, and I should have checked to see whether the picture did in fact reflect the operative methodology. If not, then I do not see how it could be included without some other material justification. I have no intention of checking on such justification myself, but if it is absent the picture should be excluded, not for reasons of prurience or prudery, but irrelevance. As long as it does not illustrate anything of constructive relevance to the current text, it no more earns a place in the article than than a portrait of Pope Joan. JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Randomly check a study you'll find something connected to the picture. For example, if you read the essay of "A study published in the December 2000...", you'll find words "Penile length was measured dorsally from the pubo-penile angle to the meatus...". I'm not arguing that the picture seamlessly reflects all the studies, but it should be connected with all the referenced researches more or less. Isn't this enough? And as JonRichfield said, it may help people who has problem to comprehend things without picture. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The very study you quote actually says "Penile length was measured dorsally from the pubo-penile angle to the meatus, and ventrally from the penoscrotal junction to the meatus side". I'm not sure why you are so keen to reduce the complexity of this down to a simple and misleading diagram, but it does a disservice to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, the picture is nothing like a serious measurement instruction graph (nor should it be per WP:NOHOWTO). It's only a comic image providing some general ideas about size. What's more, ALL the referenced studies (with detail method) in this article take the "dorsal length" as key data of their research, so guess what? I can even say the pic actually implies a widely accepted concept of length too. Such picture can never be judged as a disservice. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I came here from the RfC listing (couldn't resist!), and this page is not on my watchlist. I've looked at the image, and read the earlier discussion, above. I would lean towards the opinion of not including the image. In my opinion, the terms "length" and "circumference", in and of themselves, do not require an image to define them. The question, then, comes down to whether or not the image is useful in showing readers how to measure those two parameters in this particular case. It isn't. A generic circular arrow does not indicate whether to measure circumference at the base, the middle, or the tip. A generic linear arrow does not indicate whether to measure length from above or the side, or whether to measure it linearly or to allow for curvature. I could imagine a useful image, based on a compilation of sources, that shows very specifically how to position a measuring device, etc., but this image isn't it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I already made my point in the prevous section, but I would like to state a clear truth here: ALL referenced studies in this article have no conflicts with this picture. Regarding to the comments above "whether or not the image is useful in showing readers how to measure those two parameters in this particular case. It isn't. " I think it's exactly the advantage of this picture: providing only general information without breaking the rule of WP:NOTHOWTO. Above comments is also a deny of Delicious carbuncle's concern about "method". See? people thinks it doesn't provide any clear method. --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think NOTHOWTO is an issue here. It's not medical advice (and it certainly isn't a recipe!). Done correctly, it would be more like this is how reliable sources do it. If you have to argue, on the one hand, that it's not specific enough to be "how-to", but on the other hand, that it's providing the reader with useful information, you've argued yourself into a tight corner. Readers don't need this illustration to understand the meanings of the words "length" and "circumference". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to one of the references used in this article. Are they using the measurement methodology your diagram shows? How do you know? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your discovery. First of all, such so-called study without even detailing the measurement should be removed from the article; Secondly, do you see any study (that well detailing the measurement) has conflicts with the picture? I double-checked the page and didn't find any (modified my previous comment a little to prevent misunderstanding). Thirdly, Is the leading picture obliged to represent all varieties? No, as long as the pic well related the topic and provides a general idea, then it can be used. In the end, I would suggest to wait more uninvolved editors' comments instead of arguing further between us like the previous section, it's not what RFC for. --PontMarcheur (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If the single purpose accounts who have created this situation make provably false statements, I will refute them so that uninvolved editors are not mislead. I find your claim that you have checked all studies referenced here to be simply not credible. There is no evidence that this image represents the methodology used in any given study, let alone all of them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's really not worth fighting about. Right? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC comment – It's a fine drawing, but I don't need a diagram to tell me what "length" and "circumference" mean. Moreover, it implies that the proper way to measure a penis is dorsally, with the circumference taken to be at the center of the shaft. Is that the case? There's nothing about the methodology of measurement in the article, or did I miss it? At any rate, I would hardly call such a description a how-to guide – you would just be clarifying how "length" is defined in the context of these studies, which is critical to interpreting their conclusions. If one of the cited studies describes measurement procedures, then I would add a section about it and include a caption with the image. Otherwise, the picture doesn't add much and may even be misleading. You could avoid the problem altogether by creating a picture which illustrates a different aspect of the article. Have you considered a photo-montage? Braincricket (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on picture

• It is unnecessary to have a picture demonstrating what "length" and "circumference" are. If the person reading the article doesn't understand that the size of a penis is determined by how long it is and how thick it is, then they wouldn't be reading the article.
• The picture is not a "representative" penis. Why on earth has the person who created it decided to a) colour it b) circumcise it, thereby making the penis a racially, culturally specific penis. Showing a circumcised penis is the equivalent of showing a face modifed to take a lip plate and using it to demonstrate what a woman's face looks like. It is a cultural modification.

The diagram, if included at all, needs to be a) uncoloured, to be racially unspecific, b) uncircumcised, because that is the way that penises come naturally.

Amandajm (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This topic now looks funny to me. A comic picture like this can be "racially specific" and "circumcised". Isn't it? Waiting for more brain storm ;) Moscowsky^-talk- 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that the article, and this drawing discussion in particular, holds a high degree of humor for me, I guess as much as "Kate Middleton's dress" holds for some of you. So, I can't help but think that an Aubrey Beardsley drawing could provide an fresh look at this penile measurement/illustration subject for you. You could pick a drawing, put colorful arrows on it, and be both classic and rip-roaringly funny at once. These drawings can also be utilized to illustrate "human size variation". You probably all know men that these variations fit nicely.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aubrey-beardsley-lysistrata-04.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aubrey-beardsley-lysistrata-03.JPG

(I couldn't find the drawing with the man who must cart his ample equipage around in wheelbarrow, but I'm sure it's on the 'Net somewhere.)

Alternatively, you could create a scissor cut-out of a projected shadow silhouette for your illustration, or trace a volunteer penis on paper and scan it in. The possibilities are endless!

Anyway, I suggest you all lighten up. Perhaps take a deep breath and start anew. The drawing above, which appears rather cartoony to me and not like a medical illustration at all, strongly implies that the shaft diameter is measured at a certain point proximal to the meatus, but doesn't specify how far. The drawing definitely shows that the length measurement is taken dorsally as opposed to ventrally or laterally. And it has also been pointed out already that the drawing indicates circumcision is the natural state of the human penis when actually, it is a minority fashion statement in the world. As stated above, if these points aren't truly the case, the drawing misleads.

There's really no nice medical illustration or photograph anywhere that can be used? Have you checked Grey's Anatomy for starters? I think the photo montage suggestion of actual humans was a good one to show variations. It would also add a clinical note to the article (especially if it's in black and white) to calm the prurient nature of the drawing.

Now that I know this article, and specifically this discussion, exist, I hope I won't hear another word about excluding articles from WP that feature significant wedding dresses. Carry on, Wordreader (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What a huge mess. Non-referenced graphs again added to the article. I removed those graphs and all the non-consensused leading photos including the controversial one discussed here. Without consensus, no leading pics should be added per anyone's personal preference. This should be a more reasonable solution at this moment. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is wikipedia "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" after all. Generally 99.5% of articles I edit I most certainly don't need permission to edit or try to get a consensus or even look on the talk page, I simply edit. I wasn't aware there was a discussion on the talk page here but to me the graphs and actual images would seem to be of encyclopedic use to a reader. You can't have an article on the size of something and discuss variation without providing any visual imagery to support it. I agree with Wordreader. The cartoon image was awful. The graphs are not accurate I gather?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the graphs you added don't have any reliable source for its figures, see Talk:Human_penis_size#Ansell_graphs. The new leading photo you added also looks much more awful to me than the comic pic. I don't think we need any real penis photos as leading pic telling nothing useful but display a circumcised organ (or with a pointless ruler), it's not what this article for (Previously the page has such a pic during early 2010, but removed later per consensus). Regarding to the comic photo, it should match the Lifestyles (ANSELL) study 2001 mentioned in the article referring to mraverage.com. In Lifestyles official webpage the original report is already removed, leaving only a simplified version without mentioning the method/graphs; but there're traces like the mraverage.com indicates that that study is using the method as the comic pic implies. The comic pic is not ideal, but at least it sticks to this article well. Moscowsky^-talk- 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any good reason to remove the picture. Let's end this discussion now. Wikipedia is WP:notcensored. The image is an improvement to the article. Arguing that it's not necessary is not a good enough reason to remove it. If you're bothered or offended by it, too bad. I repeat: Wikipedia is WP:notcensored.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to read the discussion rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is not that anyone is offended by a cartoonish illustration of a penis, but that the illustration is misleading to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dorsal length and shaft girth (of the thickest part) of human penis (erect).

The argument of "misleading" is really endless and tiring. Not sure if i'm still a fun of spending time here. The adapted pic and caption on the right should be a compromised solution, will be added to the article soon if there is no good rejections received. Too much discussion and comments for such a small change. This topic should be given a closure ASAP. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Endless and tiring perhaps, but also true, unlike your unsupported and dubious claims that the diagram represents the method used in all studies used in this article. This RfC is about the image, please do not muddy the waters by changing it for an even worse one without consensus to do so. the RfC will be closed after 30 days. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The one who really muddy the waters and make dubious claims is still wasting everyone's time in such a dramatic way here. Blocking other editor's own work from developing the article never with a good reason. As the author of the picture, I don't need to take any actions by myself; All my supporters will do it on represent of me. I've already lost patience to go on arguing here. Good luck. RFC is not the only tool, you can use higher level escalation tool if you really knee for it, help yourself. ;) Moscowsky^-talk- 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored the picture per original consensus at Talk:Human_penis_size#Seek_Consensus:_Add_a_New_Leading_Image. No further changes should be done unless a new consensus is reached in this section. --PontMarcheur (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• RFC Comment In general humans have no misunderstanding of what the circumference and length of a penis means generally, so the image is unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the article. Further, the cartoon style image seems contrary to the usual picture norms. I note the measuring method shown in the image is also not necessarily universal, leading the image to be misleading. Just because wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean we should insert lower quality pictures that are misleading for no real educational benefit. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lynn "study"

The flawed study by Richard Lynn (see here) is making the rounds in newspapers etc., can somebody find something to repudiate this and add it to the article? --Sarefo (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is needed to 'repudiate' it. The article you linked to clearly fails WP:MEDRS as a source and, per Wikipedia policy and guideline, shouldn't be used to support a medical claim. I do not see the article or Lynn used in the article and will be sure to watch out for attempts to do so. Zad68 18:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The one who wrote the measurements in the section that references the Lynn study mixed up inches and centimeters. The tables in the referenced study lists measurements in centimeters; the wiki entry lists those as inches, and then converts to centimeters. Giganz (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor just changed that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone added this nonsense back in and I deleted it. Huaxia (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lynn article qualifies as review (at least in terms of data, it contains very little if any new results) and is consistent with multiple other works, thus I would appreciate more serious comments than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to look at the study, he cites "everyoneweb.com" (really) as a source, one which has deliberately falsified data (i.e. the numbers are completely different from that which was originally found). "Anything with a URL is a source" doesn't qualify, see above Huaxia (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is missing crucial info

For an article that talks about penis size, it's missing something crucial: how that size is defined. I realize that the detailed how-to guides that were reverted were probably unnecessary, but at the very least there should be a blip about how the length and girth of the penis is technically measured. Not a how-to guide, but a sentence or two covering the medical definition and generally accepted procedure. I think that a good place to put that would be the intro, as the first paragraph, as that's what the entire article is based on. Here's a proposal:

Penis length is defined as the linear distance along the dorsal side of the erect penis extending from the mons veneris to the tip of the glans. In non-medical terms, the penis length is measured in a straight line on the top side of the erect penis, from the skin of the belly to the tip of the penis. Penis circumference is defined as the linear distance around the widest, thickest, part of the erect penis.

If there are no objections, then I'll add it. --Humorideas (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we've had this conversation before. The does not appear to be any one standard measurement used in the studies quoted in this article. It would therefore be misleading to define how to measure a penis. This is no different than the issue with the image illustrating the same thing. In any case, this is exactly what WP:NOT HOWTO is about. Even if this were not the case, the sources seem very poor - about.com? www.male-impotence-penis-enlargement.com? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I never had this convo with you before. I'm guessing that you're referring to the convos above on more or less the same subject. It's not at all surprising if it has been brought up before.

The material that I offered to add, ABOVE (NOT the reverted stuff) is clearly a description of what penis size entails, and it's not a how-to guide. It's not declaring how to do something, only detailing a conventional definition (except for, arguably, the second sentence in the passage, which could easily be removed or modified). In this respect it's the same case as the opening sentence of the article on human height: Human height is the distance from the bottom of the feet to the top of the head in a human body standing erect.

If there are different methods, that's fine; we can detail several, or (until then) offer a caveat that said method is not universal. A Wikipedia article is constantly in development; start with one component and add the rest later.

Also, at least one of the sources is notable the last time I checked.

Btw, a new hobby? Don't need another - got plenty. ;-) --Humorideas (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Humorideas, personally I appreciate your effor to develop this article a lot. It is absolutly worth repect that you spent time trying to make this article better; I've been there before. Some unpolite comments may also have angered you. But too bad, please note that "the addition of methods or evening mentioning too much about the word 'method' is not only something about WP:NOTHOWTO, but also hurting someone(who never add any contructive edits to the article)'s fundamental interests", who will involve you to nothing but meaningless edit wars triggered by oneself. So my suggestion for you is: Dismiss this article and find somewhere neater and more civilized. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response above - it's not a how-to guide. Note how it compares to the opening sentence in the article on human height, which has been allowed to stand. And if we removed or modified the second sentence detailing measurement, as well as note that the definition may not be universal, and allow for additional methods to be noted, etc., there doesn't appear to be any discrepancy with Wikipedia policy. See here for an updated example:

Penis length may be defined as the linear distance along the dorsal side of the erect penis extending from the mons veneris to the tip of the glans, and penis circumference (girth) as the linear distance around the widest part of the erect penis. However, there is no universally accepted definition of penis length or girth, and different studies may use different meanings.

As already stated, different meanings could be edited in later. --Humorideas (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Human height has a single generally accepted definition. Studies of human height therefore tend to use methods for measurement that, if not the same, are equivalent. Measuring a discrete object is not the same as measuring something which is a conjoined part of an object. Human height is not penis measurement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one is discrete and the other conjoined, but that doesn't mean that one is much more disputed than the other (do you have evidence for this?), and in any case, the 'caveat' provided in the form of the last sentence in the passage would take care of that. Now, do you own this article? I do find it very curious that you're offering excuse after excuse to prevent a definition of penis size from appearing on an article about penis size. First it was WP:NOTHOWTO (which wasn't even a valid rebuttal to the passage above), and now suddenly it's the possibility that the definition is somewhat more disputed than that of human height (which obviously doesn't mean that nothing on it can be added at all). The passage above seems perfectly acceptable, so I'll be opening a dispute resolution request if this warring continues. Finally, quit with the obnoxious comments in the edit history - Wikipedia editing, which I only just started last month, takes a few minutes, maximum, and doesn't detract from my actual hobbies - plus personal attacks like you used could be used against you. --Humorideas (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to own this article. My interest is exactly the opposite - to free the article from the small cliche of penis-size obsessive single purpose accounts that seem to have been taken control of it. This article is really quite poor and has no hope of improving if we just keep piling on more original research and poor sourcing. WP:NOTHOWTO is sufficient reason not to include the paragraph, but it is not the only reason. You are welcome to pursue some kind of dispute resolution if you wish. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Soz if I was being a dick yesterday, but your cocky attacks and false insinuations on WP:NOTHOWTO got the better of me. Let's make up, k?

Still, I'm not sure if you're actually comprehending the above passage, but it is clearly not a how-to guide, and any insinuation of such is blatantly false.

That being said, your point about original research holds merit. Even if at least one of the aforementioned sources was notable, it would be sensible to find a more relevant and reliable source on the subject - like an authoritative medical source - that would effectively invalidate any claim of original research, given that the subject is as ambiguous as you say it is (which doesn't seem clear, but better safe than sorry).

Such a source doesn't seem to be easily Googled though. If anyone wants to pick it up after me, be my guest.

... Btw, in case you were accusing me of such, this is not a single-purpose account, as my edit history shows. I jump from subject to subject, as most of us tend to do. ;-)

Cheerio. --Humorideas (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading above comment from Delicious carbuncle I just can't help saying more. Who is the one that is so...so...so...obsessive indeed? So you believe those people who trying to change the article are all "single-purpose" accounts and from some kind of "union"? Controlled by me maybe? Seriously? All those people are absolutely strangers for me too. All the comments I put on this talk page is per good faith, because I do believe there is a way to properly mention the measurement methods about penis size with necessary details, intead of hiding from it. Why are you so resistant about all this? So after fighting against so many different people over and over again alone, using so many offensive words to innocent strangers in edit notes, you never questioned this whole issue even a little bit? That is... Well..."Unbelievable". For me you do act like you're the owner of not only this article, but also the whole Wikipedia, from the very beginning. Moscowsky^-talk- 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. At first I had a good enthusiasm to help this article too, but in the end, I just sit on the sidelines of this ugly performance. BTW, my talk page doesn't welcome unpolite vistors, especially ones who talks like a administrator but is actually nobody. To behave oneself, one must know who and where he is ------ isn't this a basic rule that every normal people should follow? --PontMarcheur (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, guys, this here is supposed to be an encyclopedia, based on reliable sources. Find an authoritative academic source rather than some websites and then we can talk. See WP:MEDRS. Andreas JN466 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't stress enough the above comment by Jayen466. Reliable academic sources fit for an encyclopedic article on a medical topic are needed if you want this information added. I hate to use Encyclopedia Britanica as an example, but you won't find information presented in Encyclopedia Britanica based on some obscure websites which someone probably WP:MADEUP one day. Find some reputable medical and academic journals and then you can add this to the article. TheLou75 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to butt in here and state that mentioning methods is not a WP:NOTHOWTO violation, unless we are specifically telling readers how to do it -- as in "To measure your penis, you should do this." Plenty of Wikipedia articles mention practices; and while the text is educating readers on how to do those things, it's not a how-to violation unless we are specifically telling readers "This is how you do this." As someone who looks at Wikipedia medical articles often, I can confirm that methods and/or procedures are mentioned in various Wikipedia medical articles, including ones that are of WP:GA or WP:FA status. WP:NOTHOWTO specifically states: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." Humorideas's proposoal above does not pertain to the article in general and does not read like any of those examples. What is and what isn't a how-to violation has been discussed at that policy's talk page more than once. One of you should probably invite editors from there to weigh in on this issue here; if any of them weigh in, they will also be interested in informing you all of the best way to word material so that it isn't a how-to violation. Usually, this means not speaking directly to the readers. That is because all texts describing practices, such as gun safety, are informing readers of how to do those practices. In the reference currently placed beside WP:NOTHOWTO, the policy also states, "describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not."

All that aside, the sources Humorideas used for his or her original text are indeed poor (although About.com is reliable for some types of information; for example, an exclusive interview with a notable figure). 108.60.139.170 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

SI-units

I'd like to suggest that the units used in this article (typically the measure for length) are all changed to the metric system (rather just having the centimetres added in brackets in some places). The consistent use of SI-units would increase the readability of the article for the world-wide audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.67.128 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2013

Please change " Erect circumference

Similar results exist regarding studies of the circumference of the adult fully erect penis, with the measurement taken mid-shaft.[citation needed] As with length, studies that relied on self-measurement consistently reported a significantly higher average than those with staff measuring. In three studies of penis size where measurements were taken in a laboratory setting, the range of average penis circumference when erect was 3.5 to 3.9 inches (8.9 to 9.9 centimetres).[14]" to " Erect circumference

Similar results exist regarding studies of the circumference of the adult fully erect penis, with the measurement taken mid-shaft.[citation needed] As with length, studies that relied on self-measurement consistently reported a significantly higher average than one with staff measuring. In a study of penis size where measurements were taken in a laboratory setting, the average penis circumference when erect was 4.8 inches ( 12.3 centimetres)." because I looked up the studies that Cory Silverberg cites in the referenced article, and the measurements of average erect circumference in the aforementioned studies are the measurements that I have changed the Wikipedia article to, in my edit request. The studies' measurements of average erect circumference are not what Mr. Silverberg claims them to be. There is one study by Wessels et al that Silverberg cites, which is actaully the only study that even considers laboratory-measured erect circumference. Hopefully these are better sources: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584195 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06806.x/full Marching2 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The circumfrence stated does not include some of the data cited in this source (source 9 in the article) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06806.x/full Very notable are the 4000+ men measured by the kinsey institute with an average of 12.2-12.6cm (4.8-4.9in) in circumfrence measured at the widest point.

Also on the data you stated, 4.33" was only the average for a sample size of 32 men and that group was a clear outlier, 4.69" was the next closest average. However, there is also a lifestyle condoms survey in the data you had that had average size at 4.97. It appears you stated the top and bottom averages were simply the study with the lowest average, and the study with the highest average, yet you rounded 4.33" down, but did not round 4.97" up (4.3-4.9 range). There were also significantly more men above 5.0" in the studies cited (There were much more studies near the high end) then below 4.3". Overall, I suspect low-balling.

Furthermore, a problem with ALL the data is varying methods of measurement. Some measure the base (larger), others measure the mid-shaft, others measure simply the largest point. This is quite problematic and a bit beyond my abilities to fix.

This subject may require some work to fix up. However, as you give a directly linked referance for your figures, and the about.com article does not, and your figures are closer to the other referances being used in the article, I would be in favor of the change in the meantime. I would however edit the average circumfrence to 4.3-5.0 inches, which is using more fair rounding.

Techandchess (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, I'm not sure the link is reliable that you included. Mdann52 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just adding, that, since you contacted me, I concur that this request needs: consensus, reliable sources, and to be expressed in an exact "Please change X to Y" form, giving the exact wording of your proposed change. It's normal practice to close requests that don't fulfil these criteria so that further discussion may continue. I won't close it again at this point, since you evidently disliked that happening. The criteria will need to be satisfied before anyone is likely to make the change for you, though. Good luck. Begoon ^talk 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Begoon, I am failing to understand your criticisms. I clearly put my edit request in a "change x to y " format. You say my sources are unreliable: the Medscape source was written by urologists,it would replace the current About.com source, which is written by a sex psychologist. I suspect a urologist would be more knowledgeable on this matter than a psychologist.The second source I used, the onlinelibrary.wiley.com source, is already referenced in the human penis size article, so I find it interesting that an already referenced source can be reliable in one instance and unreliable in my instance. Thank you for your response.Marching2 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Hopefully someone else will understand your clear X->Y request. I'm afraid I don't, and it seems Mdann52 didn't either. Your comment reads to me like a very fine, well researched opening point in a discussion - not a simple, clear edit request. You discuss some kind of change "in the meantime" and it's unclear why we need to make some kind of interim change rather than altering what (if anything) needs altering right now. That's just one point that needs discussion. To my mind, there therefore needs to be discussion and consensus first. The sources may be fine once the change is clear, I have not said otherwise, but I also don't see any consensus yet for an alteration, or a clear indication of what that change would be. Since I seem unable to help here, I'll leave this for others to look at. Sorry if I've not been helpful. Good luck. Begoon ^talk 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You are responding to Techandchess's comment, Begoon, not my edit request, which is above Techandchess's comment.Marching2 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And you are absolutely correct. My apologies again. I think both Mdann52 and myself have made exactly that error. I still don't see what the consensus is, though, after reading both your comments again. Do you agree with Techandchess's comment, and if so, exactly what text in the article do you propose changing, and what is your proposed change? There are a lot of figures discussed in your comments and his, and I'm not seeing it clearly enough to pull an agreed change out of all that. Perhaps I'm missing the obvious again.

I hope you don't think I'm being deliberately obstructive. That's not the case - I just still can't see a completed discussion and consensus, and that's what's needed for an edit request. The amusing thing is that you will be able to make this edit yourself by the time we have finished talking about it here... I'm not supposed to be WP:BOLD when implementing edit requests if discussion is still ongoing, but when you have made another couple of edits you will be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, and able to make your own bold edit, with consensus. Sorry - I know this probably seems like a whole lot of unnecessary red tape to a new user - but there are good reasons we work this way. (If that's all too long to make sense to you - I'm not comfortable making your edit until I can clearly see what the agreed change is, and I can't at this point.) Begoon ^talk 23:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point Begoon both Techandchess and Mdann52's contributions to this discussion are irrelevant, since they have not responded to my revised edit request, which is completely different. They were responding to my original edit request based on a different source, if you look up the talk page history it will confirm this. So the only people I am now attempting to form consensus with at this point are you, and Callanecc. However I will go through Techandchess's numbers. The Kinsey Institute numbers were self-reported. My edit request is not concerned with self-reported data. In the next study by Schneider and Sperling, 4.33 is an extrapolation of circumference from a measurement of penis width that I referred to in my original request.The study did not measure erect circumference, just width. 4.69 was from laboratory-measured circumference of men interested in penile enlargement, so the chances that the data are skewed low is high (the de Ros study). Lastly, the Lifestyles condoms survey he mentions was not a scientific study, as the authors are unknown and the study does not appear in any academic journal. By process of elimination I was left with only the Wessells study, the only study to measure erect circumference in a laboratory-setting of physically normal men. Thus I have used the Wessells data in my edit request above.Once again my new sources for the edit request that has been responded to by only Begoon and Callanecc: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584195 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06806.x/full And my original source, for the request that both Techandchess and Mdann52 responded to, which I am no longer using: http://condomsizeandfacts.blogspot.ca/2011/10/simple-truth-about-penis-circumference.htmlMarching2 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I'm going to have to be blunt. Sorry. Too much time is being wasted here on requests for an edit which is not ready to be made.

• There is no consensus here.
• You should not alter posts that people have replied to, as you imply you have done above - it makes the discussion impossible to follow - please don't do that. see WP:TPG.
• Comments do not become "irrelevant" because the commenter has not returned yet - WP:DEADLINE - there is no deadline.
• There is still no clear edit request here that can be actioned.
• This is still just a discussion - it does not fulfil the criteria for an edit request. (consensus, clear X-> Y request, reliable sources). The discussion has reached no conclusion.
• I am deactivating this edit request again. Please do not reactivate it until WP:CON (<-please read that) (consensus) and a clear ready to implement change with reliable sources is present.

My advice is to start a new discussion section, below this one, with clarity and brevity - gain consensus, and then, and only then, add an edit request template if you still need assistance. Nobody will take any action based on this section now - it is too hard to follow, and impossible to implement anything at all based on it.

The edit request template is not to draw attention to a discussion, it is to ask an editor to implement an edit which is ready to be made, agreed, and supported by acceptable sources. I won't reply to any more edit requests concerning this until the edit is ready to be made. (although I may deactivate the template to avoid wasting other editors' time, if it is inappropriately reactivated.) I may contribute to any ensuing discussion if I have anything useful to add, or if I think I can help you achieve consensus, but that's all I can do.

Sorry again if you find the considerable time I have spent trying to explain this to you unsatisfactory - but I have tried very hard to help, and that's all I have right now. Good luck. Begoon ^talk 15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your informed advice, I do not know how I could make my request any clearer unless I add the superscript for the new references into my quote of the revision and mention the exact section of the article, which seemed redundant to me but I guess the utmost clarity is requiredMarching2 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Between About One Year After The Onset Of Puberty And, At Latest, Approximately 17 Years Of Age"

Where in [1] does it say that full penile length is achieved at 17? This is the closest mention I see of the age of 17 in the context of males:

"Testicular enlargement starts between 9.5 and 13.5 years of age in most males (SMR 2 to 3), concluding between the ages of 12.7 and 17 (SMR stage 5)."

I know quite a few guys (I'm gay, and have asked boyfriends and other friends) whose penes were not finished growing by 17, myself included - anecdotal, I know, but I'm still skeptical of the number posted. Perhaps we should find a source that directly/explicitly corroborates the statement in the article. 70.138.217.107 (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetics

Not one mention of genes that control the size. bad article.--72.128.32.135 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Women are frightened by very big penises

If men asked women how they feel about penis size, they’d get another story. Some women are actually frightened by very big penises, and many women just don’t attach very much importance to the issue. But these men who are all hung up about the size of their penises can’t seem to get that straight — and, because many of them are also stubborn, convincing them otherwise is a difficult job.

A woman’s vagina can accommodate a big or a small penis. Because most of a woman’s nerve endings are concentrated at the entrance to the vagina, the sensations that a bigger penis may cause aren’t all that different to her from those caused by a smaller penis.

Sex for Dummies http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Sex-For-Dummies-3rd-Edition.productCd-047004523X.html

Pictures reinforce stereotypes; not necessarily based on reality

The image at the top reinforces stereotypes that African penises are larger than Caucasian penises, which is largely nothing more than an unfounded rumor that has never been scientifically demonstrated.

Using "reports" on penis size to reaffirm this supposedly "positive" stereotype isn't cause for stating that all black penises are larger. If people are going to claim that one "study" is verifiable evidence of the fact, then they have no right to also disclaim "studies" that black people are less intelligent - which has also been put to paper in so-called studies that are more or less of the same reliability of penis studies. The new group-think tends towards accepting the positive stereotypes of blacks while ignoring the other, which goes against all rational thought which would otherwise immediately discount anything pertaining to stereotypes - which amount to nothing more than wives' tales. The hypocrisy and double standards of take one / throw out another is laughable.

I'm not going to pretend that the individual that posted those pictures deliberately knew what he was doing to reaffirm the stereotype that so and so race of male is superior to another; again, I can't prove this but that is my strong inkling. One might as well put a picture of Jonah Falcon - owner of the largest documented penis in the world, and a randomly chosen penis from an online adult image resource (maybe of an Asian or Indian male) and present this as visual proof of racial differences in penis size.

Besides, there are huge white penises in porn, just as big if not bigger than black ones; I wonder if anyone ever stops to think that the reason black penises seem to be bigger in porn is a result of socioeconomic factors that compel those men to find work in porn whereas white men with large penises are presented with larger and more viable options of work in society.

The PC crowd is beyond itself in its lunacy and double-think and cognitive bias; if this article were, say, about brain size, and an image (I don't know how they would do it) of a black person's brain was placed subjectively smaller than a white person's brain - regardless of the manner in which the images were selected, there would be an uproar.

The first time that I ever heard the rumor that certain races were larger or smaller than others, was from other men who tied the size of said races' genitalia into wild evolutionary theories that hinted towards the inferiority of Sub-Saharan blacks. Is that something we want to accept?

On a final note, if penis size were so important to women, then the inter-ethnic marriage rates would be astronomically higher than they are now - and what's more, the marriages between African / black women and supposedly "smaller" white and Asian men would be the least successful. On the contrary, the the marriages between white men ("smaller") and black women (who would - in theory - require the largest penises for satisfaction), are VERIFIABLE the most successful marriages on the planet

The average Indian is 5.54 inches according to actual medical facts, the 2006 condom study showed that 60% of men in India were measured at 5 -6.1 inches and 10% of men were 9 -12 inches

http://www.wired.com/bodyhack/2006/12/indian_men_too_/

and here is a 9 inch Indian

http://health.india.com/sexual-health/boyfriends-penis-too-big-and-it-hurts-during-sex-what-should-i-do-sex-doubt-of-the-day/

Also black men aren't big at all, they're only 5 -6 inches, even Lex Steele, the biggest one was measured at 9 1/2 inches and the rest use fake cover ups, here is proof, just look at interracial mistakes online, just add a dot after www and before com, also Indian men marry out more statistically than their women in every western country.

wwwsnowbunnyblogcom/wp-content/interracial-pics/interracial_porn_mistake.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.79.193 (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical perceptions

I would like to change Ezekiel 23:18 to N.I.V version in the historical perceptions section and add another section verifying those off the Magnon belt as having the largest penis size--Kovkikz (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Margin of error for size

The most recent article referenced for a margin of error on mean size has 300 effective participants and is from 2001; it suggests a margin of error of +/-42mm length. There is a 2013 study that had a sample size of 1,661 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12244/abstract). It seems unrealistic that the margin of error stated in this article reflects the current state of research given the 2013 study. While I do not suggest using self-selected internet survey sources, for comparison, a survey of 1292 participants verified by photograph on http://www.thevisualiser.net/ appears to have a margin of error closer to no greater than 3mm length for a 99% confidence interval. Can we please check if a standard deviation was reported for the 2013 study and asses whether the margin of error should be updated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.246.185 (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, on closer inspection, for the cited Ansell study, for a sample size of 300 participants, with a reported standard deviation of 2.096cm, and a mean of 14.928cm, isn't the 95% confidence interval from 14.691cm to 15.165cm? The confidence interval is not explicitly reported in the reference, so was it calculated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.246.185 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)