Talk:Penis enlargement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


From the article: "...blood trapped in the penis can make removal of the ring impossible without emergency intervention such as amputation or sawing the ring off." -- Amputating what? the penis?!? It sounds sort of like the old vietnam war line -- "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Can the person who wrote this please clarify what the hell gets amputated?

Clamping Is Not Jelqing[edit]

Anybody who knows anything about penile exercises knows that clamping and jelqing should be in two different sections. Clamping involves a device and is for advanced users. Jelqing requires nothing but your hands and is for beginners and beyond. It's like putting the push-up in the same section as mountain climbing.

Also, I second the fact that people need to stop removing legitimate information. There have been surveys, studies, and even books written about the subject - but they all get removed by extra-paranoid wiki editors. If honest information can't surface on wikipedia, the world's leading open information source, then where can it surface?


Dr. Laurence A. Levine is a top Urologist and is at Rush University Medical Center. He has written a case study (link here) on how traction can treat Peyronie's Disease and in the course of that, increase the size of the penis. Editors should read the case study before assuming it is spam or something of that nature. There are no commercial links on Blackwell Synergy which is a publisher of medical case studies. Allow users to provide information that validates things and provides useful data. Again, editors should read before removing this reference. Immediate removal just shows editors don't care about the content.

This page and the information within it makes it seem as if major pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer own Wikipedia. There are a ton of non-factual details and plain hearsay, based on a number of myths in terms of penis enlargement itself. I have personally used a device and am incredibly satisfied with the results I have seen, yet the editors of this page refuse to allow anyone to provide any real facts and figures to support that.

Are all products in this industry full of "fecal matter"? Absolutely not.

Once again the editors of this page have shown through immediate removal that they could care less about the actual truth, and care more about keeping the page just how they like. It is a downright shame at this point. Other companies have provided full blown clinical studies with undeniable proof about the safety and quality of their products, however no one can ever link to those details. Even though they are far more variable than half of the content on this page.

It is an utter shame that Wikipedia has come to this, all in the name of protecting from "spam" which is a meaningless theory considering wikipedia has "no-follow" status for its links.

It is an utter shame that people still think that Wikipedia is a vehicle to promote their website. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not my website. I simply found a relating article that was not promotional, and related to the topic at hand. The portion of the content that discusses "fecal matter" does not even have an appropriate citation or any clinical/research data to back it up.

This article currently states: "At present, there is no proof of any non-surgical technique that permanently increases either the thickness or length of a normal penis." I think there is some confusion about how to handle information that is not totally proven. Penile traction therapy has been shown to produce a small, but long-lasting, improvement in penis size in men with Peyronie's disease. This has been shown by multiple academic, peer-reviewed sources. Editors might question the honesty of the study authors, but they cannot just dismiss mounting data. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to do that.

The way to handle uncertain but meaningful data is to write to the uncertainty. For example, instead of saying "there is no proof" the article could say "there is limited evidence for men with Peyronie's" or "there is only debatable evidence" and then explain both the evidence and the reason why that evidence is uncertain. To say "there is no proof" gives the implication that all such claims are just pure hogwash, and this is not accurate. I understand Wikipedia's desire to be conservative in its approach, but when that descends to the point of misleading readers, it is being taken too far.

If there is enough evidence to suspect that one non-surgical treatment method works in a subset of men (with a small effect size) then the article should relate both the information and the reason why the information is not at the level of absolute proof.

Why is this important, you ask? Simple - men concerned about penis size (especially those who have lost size to Peyronie's disease) are reading both the wikipedia article and many other articles from legitimate sources, and concluding that since PTT works somewhat for increasing penis size in men with Peyronie's, it might also work for them. Men without Peyronie's might reach the same conclusion. When they see that wikipedia ignores a key piece of information that widely available from other sources, they conclude that Wikipedia is simply unreliable and is providing outdated information.

Again, it is not the job of the editors to exclude important information and thus cause the article to be misleading. If there is legitimate scientific evidence that is very suggestive, but not proof, then include that information and write to its uncertainty. This is a basic principle in scientific writing, academic writing, emergency communication, and many other fields.


This article is strangely absent of scientific backup. Please Wikipedians interested in this article - make sure it is chalk full of references to scientific evidence of the subject. That is to say, there is currently none being referenced. Personally I believe certain people are making sure to remove any references of doubt on the success of these methods. Please make sure any claims made here are backed up with valid sources and present an objective viewpoint on success rates. If none are present, make it a point to find and add some.Joshua4 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

YES! "Scientific backup" previously included was removed at some point by ... ?? I don't have time to track down the person but there is plenty of research on all aspects of this subject and references have been given. Why were the references removed? Let's give the public useful, accurate, substantiated information. So many doctors all over the world have clearly shown what works and what does not. There is no mystery. And people suffer when they are misled by misinformation. Redharecom (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I added information to the stretching and hanging section about the dangers and history of weight hanging and extenders, including citations. I also added another pop culture reference. Olichiv 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You also conveniently added links to your own commercial penis enlargement site. I am unfamiliar with wiki rules/editing but if someone can remove links 1, 6, and 8 I think it will solve this current spam problem. Thank you, Concerned Wiki-citizen -- 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I removed them myself. Someone may want to clean the article up if possible.-- 23:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, links 6 and 8 were references leading to a site that provided relevant information on both extenders and the dangers involved in using weight hanging. The site was informational and was not selling anything. It was also deemed permissible by an Admin.

I added a picture to show how clamping works. Yes, it is my own penis. Anyone is allowed to use it on their own website with proper credit. Crowdedcar 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


I imagine this page gets vandalised a lot? It is so gross

A little bit. Just another reason that Wikipedia needs a revert-o-meter. --FOo 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


These are almost universally misleading and in the case of e-mail spam, are perceived as disturbing or offensive by many users. -- what users? How is this any different from any other article where "some people believe that..." causes NPOV disputes? -- 18:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spammers using this article?[edit]

Just removed from the article:

The only effective nonsurgical method to lengthen the penis is by employing devices that pull at the glans of the penis for extended periods of time. This is known as traction; where tissues under continuous tension will undergo cellular multiplication. The result is tissue expansion, resulting in a permanent increase of the tissue. If the applied tension is too large, injury to the tissues or nerves of the penis can result.
In the absence of citations from credible medical journals, this claim ought to be regarded with suspicion. It might have been inserted into this article by an internet spammer hoping to lend credibility to a dubious and possibly dangerous device. Recent spam (April 8, 2005) for such a device links to this article.

The second paragraph was added by anonymous User:, possibly a recipient of such spam (since that address has no other contributions). Spammers abusing Wikipedia's increasing credibility as a source will be a serious issue for this article or any other article that deals with matters about which spammers lie. --FOo 02:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that removal. Articles like this need to be patrolled carefully. Thanks for catching that. -Willmcw 04:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add a couple of comments on the danger of using traction devices, however they have been removed. I tried to source them to respectable links, namely:

Along with 2 accounts of trauma due to the use of a traction device:;topic=2024.0

All means of mechanical traction or pressure to the penis can cause permanent trauma. Being myself a sufferer of Peyronnie's disease, I believe that this information is critical to users who visit this article trying to alleviate the anxiety of either having a short penis or an injured one. It is too easy to let yourself be fooled by all the unethical vendors of products that lack any serious research when you are desperate to prove the world that you are man enough. This is especially true for teenagers, who are an easy target of unscrupulous vendors. These vendors use all sort of tricks to convince potential buyers that their products have been scientifically tested, but they are dangerous, and they are the same trying to hijack this article. Our sexist society makes it more difficult for men to openly discuss their sexual anxieties, and they cash on this limitation. Therefore I believe that it is crucial to make clear that there is a real risk of ending up with permanent injury as a result of trying any of these mechanical devices/procedures.

Forms do not qualify as WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I do not see clearly why a source is needed to state and obvious fact: mechanical devices can cause permanent trauma to the tissues in the penis. Would you agree to include such an statement?
If you stick with the first three links (urologyhealth, fda, etc), which meet reliable sources standards, yes. Just leave out the forum links, please. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been a long time, but I tried to edit this again and add the info that was removed and linked to reliable sources, however I cannot edit this anymore. Could anyone please add a new section on 'Traction devices' to the article?

"Traction devices are commonly offered as an aid to penis enlargement and as a potential remedy for Peyronnie's disease, in order to correct penis curvature. Vendors of these artifacts often point to conclusive studies made by respected researchers, however there is currently no conclusive study made by any independent body that proves the effectiveness of any penis enlargement device[1][2] A number of vendors suggest that patients can rely on their instructions to treat themselves with a traction device with the aim of either enlarging their penis or correcting its curvature (whether congenital or caused by Peyronnie's disease). Unsupervised use of traction devices can cause permanent injury to the penis, resulting in Peyronnie's disease or worsening the symptoms if the condition was already present, and they should be only used when prescribed by a registered professional.[3]" (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Ant

Penis enlargement treatment (pills)[edit]

I recently read a article in a Danish magazine Chili. One of their journalists bought penis enlargement pills, and over a 7 week period, his penis size actually increased, both in lenght and diameter. In the article he goes to see a doctor to make him confirm the penis growth. The doctor explains that the penis growth is caused because the pills contain a drug that have a "viagra-type" effect on the body so to speak. With erection over large periods of time, you should be able to increase the amount of blood that flows to the penis, and thereby increase the size. The journalist from this article describes how he has an erection many times a day when taking the pills. Maybe this article should be rewritten sometime, as it has been shown to work? Of course, this shouldn't be without warnings, as having erections over large periods of time may have bad sideeffects.

I found the magazine again. It's from the latest magazine, october 2005. The magazine isn't on the Chili Magazine-homepage yet, but I hope it will be soon. The doctor who "inspected" his a real doctor, his name is Jerk W. Langer ([2]). --Menkhaf 08:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This is how commercial pill companies make money. They bribe journalists -- 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

See recent additions to Enzyte and ExtenZe (talk pages only at this time) on Wikipedia Mydogtrouble (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's quite possible the journalists were telling the truth and were not bribed - pills do work but the effect is only temporary, stop taking the pills and size goes back to normal. Is a bigger penis worth the cost of buying these pills for the rest of your life? I don't think so. Permanant penis enlargement is possible but not with pills or patches (and without surgery too if people have any sense).

Has anyone ever read the instructions that come with those male enhancement pills? I used to work for a shipping company and we had an undeliverable package that the shipper didn't want back. It contained male enhancement pills. The instructions sounded very much like masturbation which does produce penile enlargement until orgasm... Also, the jelqing description sounds suspiciously like masturbation...

Just for the record - size does NOT matter - it is all about technique!! Mylittlezach (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While the general population would rather seek a so called professional medical way to solve their problems those of us who have come to disdain unnecessary medical practices (i.e. circumcision) have to do a lot of ground work to realize truth through obscurity. Penis Enlargement Pills are largely made up of natural herb complexes whose concert have proven effects on penile tissue regeneration and expansion. Featuring herbs which, increase blood flow and circulation which has proven to help prevent heart attacks, hasten removal of toxins which could limit a healthy erection, stimulate the immune system, increase daily energy levels, helps the body repair damage which causes erectile dysfunction and prostate problems and premature ejaculation, helps to level out testosterone levels which may have been out of whack since pre-prepubescence, I could go on and on but you see the link look for yourself. The information listed on the website is some of the most trusted in the underworld of penis enlargement and if you don't believe the information found there take a listing of the herbs found and look them up yourself. Sooner or later people are going to realize that holistic health and the vitamins and herbs attached to it are far better than paying a medical practitioner who makes money on people only when they are sick, so why would such a person want you to stay healthy. As far as the information on the main page about penis enlargement pills, I recommend that it be removed because if anyone chooses to, try to find the linked information, I believe it was Flora Research of California ok what the HELL is that all about no such place exists, sure there has been research done on FLORA in California but there is no said institution who produces research or advice stating that the ingredients in Penis Enlargement pills has been intoxicated with molds or fungus. The University of Maryland information cited is similarly bogus I am pretty good at in depth research, I delved into the pages listed under topic "penis enlargement pill" for almost an hour and could not find any information about said topic, it was all useless blog chatter from students. In the future if some one is going to claim advice or research I would put it to Wikipedia that said research has to be verified before it is published.

Secondly let me address the issue of traction devices. Please refer to comment by user User: in #Traction/Penis Extenders section.

Well that concludes my rationale on the subject for today, except to say this, I am a man as well, I know what a Penis means to men, our western ideas of who has what and why it is better has been deeply ingrained into our life, so if we can make ourselves feel a little better by adding a few inches or making what we have feel heftier I think we should go for it. If only to make up psychologically for believed shortcomings. 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are severe legal ramification for medical staff who "make people sick". And how are alternative medical practitioners, whose methods are NOT regulated and NOT backed by evidence, any less dependent on illness to make a buck? Its the quacks and hucksters and archaic "eastern" medicine boosters who are the profit-taking scoundrels. Still, I do understand guys lacking in penis size getting desperate for something, anything that might work. But exploiting their "believed shortcomings" and hiding behind a "western medicine is evil and ignorant" smokescreen is nothing but a crock. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This pills section is an absolute sham, with biased and completely wrong information. Why are we not allowed to link to actual, credible, and substantial clinical studies? I also pointed out in the section that many natural herbal products are NOT filled with fecal matter, and provided back up of this in terms of the description of cGMP certified labs. THIS IS A FACT, that the FDA regulates these labs to ensure everything is manufactured in a same and clean manner. Yet it was deleted right away with absolutely no justification.

Would we allow this type of slander and loose-lipped jargon on any other page? Shame the editors have allowed it to come to this. An Absolute shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarketDream (talkcontribs) 16:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I have been told that "anyone that says any medical procedure is 100% safe is a quack". Please explain to me how an herbal pill or a traction device or a gel or exercises fall under the category of a "medical procedure" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarketDream (talkcontribs) 17:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I deleted the entire external links section as it contained nothing but advert links. If the section is to be restored, any links should be to academic or non-advertisement based discussions of this topic. Anyone can find 20 billion penis enlargement sites with a simple Google search

I have used penis enlargement pills and found that my penis increased by 4 inches and 2inches in grip. now I have my penis size atleast 14.5 inches in length.


I think that this page is in conflict with Wikipedia's creed about not being an instruction manual.

Yep. But it probably needs a cleanup, not deletion. Andjam 11:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Groundless Removals[edit]

August 4th, 2006 Update: Moderators who are removing clean and relevant content from this article are clearly biased and are not reading medical evidence. This goes against what Wikipedia is here for. Fastsize is a CE Certified medically approved Traction device. There is more than enough Evidence that it works through clinical trials being produced right now. The evidence is in the Advisory board which includes Dr. Steven Lamm, the author of The Hardness Factor a Best Seller. If a very respected doctor like this approves of the validity of this device, the expert moderators of Wikipedia must have a very good reason for removing the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Issues Concerning Verifiable Scientific Citations[edit]

I've been removing spam from this article for some time, since its a frequent target. I just sat down and read it. There is almost not cited information at all and the article appears to be little more than speculation, weasel words, rumor and original research. I've tagged the most obvious parts that need citation. If citations are not provided soon, then most of this article will be removed as it dramatically fails to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on acceptable content. Editors working on this are strongly advised to read the guidelines on reliable sources as several of the existing articles.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the validity of anecdotal evidence since that isn't the point. Wikipedia has a strong policy of requiring information to be verifiable. To quote the first line of that policy "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Forums ARE NOT reliable sources as they also sell products and exist for commercial reasons and therefore cannot be used to provide verifiability for information on Wikipedia. If there are no sources that can be cited, then the information cannot be on Wikipedia. Sorry. The uncited information will be deleted per Wikipedia policy unless sources can be cited. Gwernol 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, forums by no means whatsoever are reliable sources for they hold no scientific validity and do not conform to international medical, scientific or health standards. Besides forums are mostly created with the intention to sell their products. And some even require you to pay an advance membership fee in order to read most of the information. Basically the information that you read are just the tip of the iceburg, presented in a manner to lure the reader to sign up or buy the product. Even forums that claim to be free host members with commercial accounts who advertise in the site. This is a form of advertising. We should not allow auch biased and unscientific information in wikipedia atleast not under this topic which is classified as being of medical nature(sexuality). Respect the reputability and regulations of wikipedia.Adam 09:49, 24 June 2008

You want verifiable resources? Just go to the forums and see the pics threads. There's some pics of guys with their junk against a ruler showing gains of cms to inches in terms of length and girth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

jelq complaint[edit]

Yet I just looked up 'cat fight' in Wikipedia, and guess what? Commerical links are right there at the end of the article, no problem. Two of them, as a matter of fact.

Maybe it's who you know or how much you pay that determines if you can have a link to your site on here?

I don't know what could be more pertinent to an article about JELQING than a site that sells a JELQ DEVICE.

There are no commercial links on cat fight, that I can see, only two links to information sites, and one news article. None of these are trying to sell anything, or getting any financial benefit from being referenced on Wikipedia.
Commercial links will be removed when they're found. A link to a site that sells a jelq device would invite links to all sites that sell such devices. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, sorry. If the site has useful (not promotional) information about it, then that information could be put in the article with a citation. =Axlq 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Subjects deleted[edit]

I haven't been here for a long time, and am disturbed to see that some valid points have been removed. On the subject of injections under the penile skin, I had mentioned that some plastic surgeons have used the subject's own body fat; that is true, but it has been removed. I mentioned the cutting of the penile ligament for penile lengthening, which is a highly questionable procedure but that has been done by some people; this has been removed. I mentioned the recent success of the first penile allograft, and this has been removed. These are all valid items. Who removed them and why? jaknouse

That was me, in this edit. Its pretty easy to look through the article's history and find a particular edit. I removed them because they had, for some time, been tagged with the {{citation needed}} tag and no-one had found citations to back these assertions up. I posted a warning on this talk page that unsourced material would be removed. I waited, no sources were added, so I removed the material.
If you can cite reliable sources for these sections, please add them back. Thanks, Gwernol 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So then on what grounds do you determine during what length of time the citation needed warning might be visible? Like ANYBODY on the planet cares. They want info, not your crap opinion on missing citations. Use Google if you so desperately need them! Playing God does not make a good wikipedia article. Useless inducement of effort taking, and by doing that forcing info to become hidden. 01:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

garbage removal[edit]

I've taken out this paragraph:

The same month, in a non-related case (but also involving a penis pump) a 29-year old Iraqi man of Kurdish descent named Mardin Amin was en route to Iraq via Turkey from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport with his mother and two children, when a security inspector asked him to explain a 'small, black, round squeezable object' in his carry-on bag. Amin explained in a short whisper to avoid his mother's attention and potential embarrassment from being known to use sexual aids and said it was a 'pump'. However, due to his Middle Eastern accent the guard heard him say "bomb." He was charged with felony disorderly conduct as a result, but those charges were dismissed on September 13, 2006 in Cook County Criminal Court.[4]

It has nothing to do on this page, and refers only to a corny tabloid story for, at best, a tactless gratuitous reminder.

Added sentence[edit]

I've added the following sentence to the end of the Pills paragraph - "Some people have also reported that such pills make them feel horny, and give them harder erections, but again, without any actual growth of the penis." If you search on the Internet you will find that this is true. Being an active penis enlarger I know a lot about the subject. Hiyahiyahiya 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Help Me Out[edit]

I'm 17, I am very self-concious about my penis length. I have a 4.5 inch penis. I know average is 5-7 inches. I would do anything for a 5 inch penis! I don't even want a 8 inch one. I am over-weight, and just want to know if I lost weight will I see an increase in size?

Physically speaking yes loosing weight will help you see more of the penis length that you already have, for every thirty pounds that you are over your ideal weight ( i am talking ideal for your build, not the body mass index that doesn't take into account muscle) you lose an inch of exposed penis.

i reached 30age but my penis is very short not even 3 inch and i need to get marriage shortly please help me to take at least increase 2.5 inch and am very healthy please do some thing .....

Hi. sorry to disappoint you, but really need to speak to a properly qualified doctor, not a random collection of strangers on the internet. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are confused with the size of men playing in porn movies. Your 4.5 inch or 11.4 cm is inside the normal ratio! Microphalia (short penis) is less than 7 - 8 cm (2.7 - 3.1 inch). Only microphalia is related to a problematic penetration during intercourse (where the length of the penis is smaller than the length of the vagina of the woman). There is no safe and reliable way of enlarging your penis, except surgical penis enlargment (from an urologist expert), but even with that there are some risks (complications, as all surgeries) and also the enlargement is small (I guess 1 - 2 cm or 0.4 - 0.8 inches). If I haven't convinced you, you may consult an urologist - andrologist. (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

prosthetic sheath?[edit]

prosthetic sheath, is that something that should be in this article? (Long Dong Silver had it) -- 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Protection[edit]

Insert Prophylactic Joke Here David in DC 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Penis pumps - compare vaginal pumps...[edit]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but there appear to be such things as vaginal pumps in existence (note: site seems to be a bizarre German porn thing).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah it is bizarre. (by the way, the rough translation of all those words is

Hmm, if I can use men a Penispumpe that to understand. Even if a woman with its Schamlippen is not content, I can understand in certain measure. Then woman gets herself evenly a Labiaplastie. (One considers the verb gets - cosmetic operations are bought nowadays from some humans like the milk in aunt the Emma to load around the corner). Even if the Pussy feels after annualtenth-long hard core Sex too worn out, the plastic surgeon can there easily which make (” Vaginoplasty = rejuvenation OF the vagina”).

But this Pussy Pumperei… I does not know…

Д narchistPig (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Trivia[edit]

I think the sentence at the end of the penis pump section is trivia and not worthy of Wikipedia: In August 2006, Oklahoma district court judge Donald Thompson was sentenced to four years in prison for exposing himself and using a penis pump while presiding over various court cases, including several murder cases. (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty funny if true. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

They're dead links either way[edit]

The last two citations (9 and 10) both are supposed to lead to, a site whose only apparent claim to fame is the sale of a $250 extender kit. The advertisement is moot, though, because the entire site is down (lawsuit, perhaps?). The only good cite is a verifiable cite so I'm removing the dead cites and their respective statements. If the person who added those elusive case studies wants to use them, they'll have to do it correctly. If there really is "a study published in the International Journal of Impotence Research", then that needs to be directly linked instead of proxying the "results" through a website with a product to sell and an agenda to meet. FinalStrife7 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sites do go down sometimes you know, not even the mighty Microsoft is completely up 100% of the time. The links are working now. Why do you say only the International Journal of Impotence Research cite is good, what makes the BJU International cite not good? I just noticed that someone added a Reuters cite for the study published in the BJU International. I'll use that cite but I'll restore the statement I originally had for it. Dionyseus (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I managed to find a direct link to the study published in the International Journal of Impotence Research, I'll restore the statement and use this cite: Dionyseus (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How can this be mentioned in the article? I just read the lifestyles survey[3] and...[edit]

There was an intelligent discussion[4] about measurement error. THe lifestyles survey does not mention the specific way the 300 subjects were measured. Can someone elucidate here and reach concensus so that way it enters the article. (background info: the lifestyles survey was the largest credible survey done by a doctor and 4 nurses, since the kinsey report, which was done by pre-addressed stamped envelops mailed out to random men to measure themselves) (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian man[edit]

A Russian man in February of 2009 had penile surgery, despite his doctor's discouragement, increasing his penis length from 5.9 inches to 9.8 inches, but months later begged doctors to reverse the procedure as "no woman wants to be with him anymore." [3]

I deleted this part. Original news came from is UNRELIABLE source. They often post fake news to create more traffic to their site. I also asked russian doctors from,, they are involved in penis enlargement and they all said that such gains are impossible. PS I also deleted warning about hanging for uncircumcised men. I'm not circumcised and hanging for almost year and never had any problems

    At least not yet you haven't . . . Magmagoblin2 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

temporary vs permanent[edit]

I changed the first paragraph to clarify permanent vs temporary enlargement. Weasel words used in quack medicine advertising may be deliberately used to confuse the issue and make it unclear what is being promoted via suggestion to the potential customers. I think it would be good to rearrange the paragraphs into two sequential groups: the attempts at temporary enlargement, such as the pump which may work and pills which may not, and the rest. It should be noted that other articles about treatment for poor or missing erections, aka erectile dysfunction exist. Mydogtrouble (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


There is an advertisement for because they funded a research for one of their products. It also states that this 'research' is proof that the device works. Please remove this scam. (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact, that such devices work (arguably) seems to be indicated not only by this single link but also by at least one other source, so I think the link is ok as reference to the indicated claim. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer[edit]

Why is there no disclaimer on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything like a medical disclaimer in use in any of the wikipedia articles. (At least in the english wikipedia) --PaterMcFly talk contribs 14:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I did not know that (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Have there been any studies of diet and penis size? I've searched Google but the results are mostly filled with unreliable sources. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Information About Herbal Supplements & Herbal Products[edit]

Deleted as this was directly copy and pasted from a lot of links on Google.

I have deleted a lot of paragraphs and references[edit]

I have deleted a lot of paragraphs and references that are off the subject or link to spam or scam sites. Most of the links directed to "British Journal" papers that were hosted on sellers sites like

I think a lot of people are trying to get pageviews by directing people from here or making them believe the techniques work but without providing any link that proves said technique works ever slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jelqing reference[edit]

The citation is to a wiki - clearly not meeting WP's citation standards. Not certain what to do about that. (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced information[edit]

Unsupported/unsourced medical information--especially when reliance upon it can result in injury--is irresponsible; it can cause real hurt to real people.

I'm beginning a little project to remove the unsourced/improperly cited medical information from this article. This includes the commercial/promotional spam that seems to creep onto this page with annoying regularity.

Any editor wishing to restore something should be sure to include a valid, reliable, secondary source (see WP:MEDRS). Text inserted without proper citation will likely be removed rather quickly.

Anyone interested in discussing it here? Anyone want to help out? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 00:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Arginine study published in the Journal of Urology[edit]

I read the study cited in the following paragraph and found no mention of either E.D. or penis enlargement in its text.

According to a study published in the Journal of Urology, L-Arginine can increase Nitric Oxide metabolites and enzymes in the bloodstream[5]. Based on this effect, there are some "penis enlargement pills" that are sold containing L-Arginine that make claims about effectiveness.

Unless I'm missing something, it's irrelevant to the subject of the article, so I removed it. If anyone wants to discuss it, please do so here before re-inserting the claims--a new source will most likely be needed. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 06:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Traction/Penis Extenders[edit]

I would like you to insert a chapter about penis extenders as well as it is a legitemate option for penis enlargement, confirmed also by scientific studies.

In recent years there exists another option for a non-surgical non-invasive penis enlargement with penis extender devices which use the force of traction to encourage the multiplication of cells inside the penile tissues and thus the growth of penis.

"Penile extenders should be regarded as a minimally invasive and effective treatment option to elongate the penile shaft in patients seeking treatment for a short penis."[6]

It is a principle used by tribes around the world to extend earlobes, lips and other soft tissues of the body. It is also used in medicine in procedures of tissue regeneration (skin) or limb lengthening surgery.

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ "Truth, justice, sex aids and the American way". 
  5. ^ Marcia A. Wheeler. "Effect of Long-Term Oral L-Arginine on the Nitric Oxide Synthases Pathway in the Urine from Patients with Interstitial Cystitis". Journal of Urology. pp. 2045–2050. Retrieved 16 April 2012.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ [1], Gontero P. et al.:"A pilot phase-II prospective study to test the 'efficacy' and tolerability of a penile-extender device in the treatment of 'short penis'", BJU Int. 2009 Mar;103(6):793-7. Epub 2008 Oct 16.

Manrobot (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Marked as answered. Please don't reactivate the request until the previous concern about consensus is addressed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no progress on the subject of penis extenders? I am still waiting for the community to reach a consensus and place some information about extenders into this article. If you will continue to ignore this, it just meanas you are bias and do not let the public learn all the facts, as there is enough scientific evidence which prove the effectiveness of penis extenders. And even if there weren't enough evidence, numerous articles have things in them which are not verified, but are still mentioned. If you allow a section that long and detailed about penis pumps, you should also publish a short reference on penis extenders like the above proposed one. In addition, as I can see there are many other contributors which already initiated this debate, but have also been ignored and their credible position rejected. So who is behaving unprofessionally here? (Roboticman (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC))

Sometimes consensus takes time or it may be nobody cares. Wikipedia is based on consensus and the editors are volunteers. Just because your in a hurry and find your opinion important, doesnt mean the community does. Perhaps A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. Accusing or suspecting other editors of having bias because you havent gotten what you want is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Also remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate, and probably wont help you get what you want. Always allow for the possibility that the edit your requesting is unwanted or not needed.--Hu12 (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I came out a bit harsh, it was not my intention to insult anyone. I just wanted to point out the fact that the article is ignoring a subject that should be at least mentioned, as I think the public has the right to complete information, like other contributors have said it before, but were also ignored or rejected. In the passage I propose, I have addressed the problems given as a justification not to include penis extenders in the text (primarily credible scientific studies, evidence and citations), but it still hasn’t been included. Anyhow, I hope this debate will help to complete the article and the information given in it.(Roboticman (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC))
Note: marking as answered to remove from category. Please establish consensus before marking as unanswered. Cheers, — Deontalk 11:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The subject of traction for lengthening is a very widely used method and has more than sufficient validity to be in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Absolutely. Whoever is editing here is either medically uneducated and extremely suspicious of everything, or sells penis pumps and deletes all competing approaches.-- 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

   Cite some sources and the section will not be removed. Stephen Kenny 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
       You (or others like you) have removed such sources and citations, obviously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we could do with a seperate section on traction, maybe including a picture of the most popular traction device, the "Jezz Extender" with also a picture of the device being used. I don't know about the licencing for the cartoon images for it being used, so we might just have to have a picture of someone actually using the device.People's thought's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me address the issue of traction devices, I also disagree with it removal from the topic of penis enlargement, Some such devices are considered medical equipment, is one such device who has the backing of quite a few urologists and andrologists, while originally touted as a penile curvature correction device the applied traction proved to not only correct defects in penile tissue but to naturally allow tissue to be stretched and regenerated causing extension of the spongeous tissue called the Corpora Cavernosa which is inherently limited by how much it can be filled with blood when you get an erection, the goal of traction devices ( in a penis enlargement capacity) is to not only elongate the Corpora Cavernosa but to simultaneously improve girth by modifying the Corpus Spongium another elastic tissue designed to fill with blood and the Cavernosal Artery which feeds both the Corpora Cavernosa and Copus Spongium with blood, it's lengthening is directly proportional to both tissues because it is fibrous in nature and hence tied to its surrounding tissue. After all what good is a long penis if it is not proportionally wide. 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following passage: However more clinical evidence is being brought up from urologists and phalloplasty surgeons, such as Dr. Richard Wineland of Anaheim, CA and Danny Salas of Phallocare. These two phalloplasty and urology experts have concurred that traction devices can indeed produce enough tension to provide permanent enlargement of the penis by breaking down cells in the area. Clinical studies are being conducted on this device by ( Dr. Laurence Levine)) in Illinois.

The passage originally contained a link to a traction product (Fastsize). Salas and Wineland are both on the board of that product's manufacturer. Regarding info on Levine's study, the only mention of it I can find is in the traction device manufacturer's press release section. Unless unbiased third-party info can be provided, I don't think the sources here can be considered to be NPOV. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Maybe this is unbiased enough for you? medical news today press release —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I would question whether that article contains a NPOV, but that is irrelevant as the article is about Peyronie's disease and makes no claims about penis enlargement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Dr. Laurence A. Levine is a top Urologist and is at Rush University Medical Center. He has written a case study (link here) on how traction can treat Peyronie's Disease and in the course of that, increase the size of the penis. Editors should read the case study before assuming it is spam or something of that nature. There are no commercial links on Blackwell Synergy which is a publisher of medical case studies. Allow users to provide information that validates things and provides useful data. Again, editors should read before removing this reference. Immediate removal just shows editors don't care about the content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

That study is focused on treating Peyronie's disease, and has nothing to do with increasing size in healthy men. It doesn't belong here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't help that this person is shouting "STOP REMOVING..." all over the place, but even after only a short glance at the article in question, it actually might very well be relevant. It is concerned with treatment of Peyronie's disease, but during the trial they also took length and girth measurements (and, according to the abstract) reporting a change in both after penile traction therapy.
As far as I can see, there are two questions:
  • is this a reputable article/author/journal? (It is published by Blackwell, so it seems to be legitimate)
  • does the article make any claims about length/girth increase in the general case, or is the increase only the result of (successfully) treating Peyronie's disease? Could anyone sufficiently knowledgeable on this subject take a look at it? (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the article specifically mention male enhancement or enlargement. If not, that's original research. (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Penis extender" method applies traction to the penis to increase its length. This is similar to ear stretching.

I added a note above as well. I hate seeing inconsistent principles applied to editing a document. If you are going to talk about studies showing that vacuum pumps increase size in men with Peyronie's, then why not talk about penile traction therapy increasing size in men with Peyronie's? This is blatantly inconsistent.

For that matter, since lots of men are using PTT devices, they should be discussed here just to explain what current evidence does and does not say. The article does not have to endorse PTT devices, it should just point out that current evidence shows some effect, for some men, within a specific patient population. There is nothing wrong with providing accurate information. The evidence is available on PubMed for anyone to see.

Masturbation helps in old age[edit]

File:Masturbation 1.JPG
Penis of a 65 years old man Heimecky

After 60 years of age the Masturbation helps in enlarging the human penis. This is a proven fact. See the picture here. Its a file created by User:Heimecky who is 65 now. His penis size seems to be 10" as it is clear from this picture here.

Merge/redirect of "Jelq"[edit]

The article "Jelq" was recently discussed at AfD and the result was that it should be merged/redirected to this article. Accordingly, I have merged the verified material here (with references) and have redirected "jelq" to here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the best penis inlargement pill ?Italic text

Priapus Shot[edit]

Info about the Priapus Shot needs to be added....More info about it Here.

Not done: Your source is a press release. Wikipedia guidelines require reliable independent sources, preferably secondary sources, both to establish verifiability and to ensure that due weight is given. See also WP:RSMED for guidelines specific to medicine-related articles. Additionally, when making an edit request, it's preferable to specify the exact text you'd like added. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus for Improvement[edit]

I've read the article and all the above. Keeping spam and commercial stuff out is good, but it's obvious to me that there remains a great deal of room for improvement on this article. For instance, a number of techniques used in attempts to enlarge penises are not covered. I suggest that all known techniques be added - preferably without evaluative statements of efficacy, safety, etc, at first, as those seem to be the most controversial. In short, the approach I suggest is to focus first on listing all techniques, then adding the associated efficacy and safety controversies, if any, and allowing resolution of controversies to proceed organically, as contributors find and debate the legitimacy of citations they wish to add here in Talk. Comments, please... might something like this approach be helpful? BTW, I have as yet done no primary research on this topic and have no agenda - just trying to help :) Rad314 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Surgical Enlargement[edit]

Lexington Steele's surgery. Apparently there's a method not enumerated in the article- a sort of cutting of a ligament giving the penis just a little more- Lex Steele had it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesimo (talkcontribs) 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Good point. The ligament-cutting surgery is, I believe, the most common surgical method. I don't have the time or knowledge to write anything about it, though. LWizard @ 08:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the side-effects of penis enlargement surgery should be noted in the article. Some of the complications can be awful as can be seen in this terrifying story Dr. Krakovsky - BTC breaks his silence - Maximum Exposure of post-op complications. Is there any study available that discusses the complications that can arise from PE surgery? Dionyseus (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Penile implant" redirects to this page, but this page has no information on penile implants, just the vague acknowledgement under "Surgery". The relevant article would seem to be penile prosthesis. At the very least this article should link to that one under "Surgery", but really penile implant should redirect there and not here. (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In the introduction to this article it states, "At present there is no consensus in the scientific community of any non-surgical technique that permanently increases either the thickness or length of the erect penis..."

This article goes into detail about the dubious non-surgical techniques, but I'm surprised that there is no mention of the alleged surgical techniques for penis enlargement. I would encourage anyone who has knowledge of this to expand this article to make it more complete.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2014[edit]

Currently written: "Pumps may work even if there is nerve or vascular damage preventing a natural erection, but excessive or prolonged use (hours) will cause permanent harm as over-enthusiastic pumping can burst blood vessels and form blisters." Add: "Excessive vacuum can cause permanent damage in a single session, especially to the corpus spongiosum, which may make it more difficult to achieve and maintain an erection, and can reduce the size of the glans on the erect penis." Note: This is based on personal experience. (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015[edit]

A. In the methods section, in addition to pumping, clamping, and jelqing, there should be a section on traction (also known as extending and/or stretching), which should cite the following peer-reviewed studies.

1. Oderda, Marco, and Paolo Gontero. 2010. "Non-invasive methods of penile lengthening: fact or fiction?" British Journal of Urology International 107:1278-1282 .

This metastudy concludes:

"It seems that penile extenders represent the only evidence-based technique of penile elongation. Results achieved do not seem to be inferior to surgery, making these traction devices an ideal first-line treatment option for patients seeking a penile lengthening procedure." (p. 1278)

2. Wylie, Kevan R., and Ian Eardley. 2007. "Penile size and the ‘small penis syndrome’." British Journal of Urology International 99:1449-1455.

Also a metastudy, they summarize the evidence on extenders as follows:

"A recent study of 31 men, with a mean baseline stretched penile length of 12 cm, showed that with daily use of the Phallosan® extender system for ≥3 h, by 3 months there was a mean stretched length of 13 cm with a further increase to 13.8 cm by 6 months (P<0.001) [Sohn M, Hanikel W., Prospective study on the effects of a penile stretching system (Phallosan) for penile augmentation in patients with normal sized penises. Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the ESSM 2005; P-04–230: 77]. Changes were also seen in penile diameter. There was a good correlation between the duration of use of the device and increase in length, and 80% of patients were happy with the outcome.

"An older study reported the use of a stretching device (Penistretcher®) in nine men with a baseline stretched length of 12 cm. They reported that after using this device for ≥ 6 h per day over a 4-month period, the mean increase in stretched length was 1.8 cm [Colpi GM, Martini P, Scroppo FI, Mancini M, Castiglioni F. Efficacy of daily penis stretching technique to elongate the ‘small penis’. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14 (Suppl. 4): 155]."

B. In the pumping section, I would recommend adding the following scholarly article, which finds that pumping is effective in enlarging the penis in order to facilitate the implantation of a larger cylinder (which is used to treat erectile dysfunction).

Sellers, Tom, Martin Dineen, Emad A. Salem, and Steven K. Wilson. 2013. "Vacuum Preparation, Optimization of Cylinder Length and Postoperative Daily Inflation Reduces Complaints of Shortened Penile Length Following Implantation of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis." Advances in Sexual Medicine 3:14-18.

Their conclusions:

"The average cylinder length has increased by more than 3.5 cm (18.4 cm vs 22.03 cm) in our practice since institution of the [pumping] protocol (Figure 2). We also exceeded the national 'average' implant length of 18 cm by approximately 4 cm."

DataWonk (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DataWonk. The edit template (when it was active) describes the problem with your request. It states:

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

These may be great suggestions, but they are notes for someone else to compose content using sources you're providing. This will remain here, so someone interested in this topic can act on it if they see fit, but it's not the type of request that the edit request template is for. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

typo correction[edit]

In the "traction" section, second paragraph, first sentence, eleventh word. The word issues should be tissues.

here is the sentence

Traction as a penis-enlargement method stems from the observation that *** issues *** under continuous tension will undergo cellular multiplication. (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC) William Readling sept 13 2016

Thanks, fixed. LWizard @ 15:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penis enlargement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Add[edit] Can someone add the line on German prevalence of this procedure? (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Average length/growth section[edit]

I think it would be beneficial to include a section regarding normal penis size and growth process, as I suppose there are a lot of (young) men reading this article. --Candide124 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)