Talk:Human penis size/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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)

The Italian study is more so a study on penis size while in puberty it should not be used in comparison to studies carried out on adult men. Most boys don't finish puberty until their 20s. This was a study of mostly 17, 18 and 19 years not to mention it's making the rounds on the internet for being erect length when the study was on stretched length something that has changed in correlation with erect length from study to study. There was a Turkish and Indian study in which the erect length was drastically larger than stretched. That section of the article needs more clarification.

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.

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, which cites a map 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)

In fact the "targetmap" "reference" that "everyoneweb.com" links to from Lynn's sham paper has no source whatsoever for over half of the data points. The Japanese figure is arbitrarily reduced from 5.1 to 4.3 inches. The Chinese "Kensley Report" comes up with no matches outside of "targetmap" and Lynn, and allegedly was done in 1953. The German and Italian figures are also falsified, etc. Please don't confuse wishful thinking with facts. Huaxia (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in this article as previously mentioned, it fails WP:MEDRS. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I was editing offline and had no access to everyoneweb.com, which is unreliable source. I disagree that the racial tendencies are unreliably sourced, but don't feel like restoring them using the Lynn article as the source. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

On what basis do you disagree? Personal experience? Yes, there could be a difference according to studies that have covered 1,000+ people but it's Caucasoids, not East Asians, who are at the shorter end of the spectrum. Huaxia (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a good set of pictures to replace the lower ones, without significant perspective distortion?

That second set of pictures in the beginning of the article, in particular the erect one, has a lot of perspective distortion, giving an inaccurate perception of what it really is showing. Can we get another set that doesn't have so much distortion to replace that pair? --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Dorsal vs. ventral, base vs. corona vs. thickest-point

Reference 6 ("Predicting penile size during erection"), Table 1 gives average measurements for both length and circumference in the flaccid, erect and stretched states, for both dorsal ("top") and ventral ("bottom") in the case of length and at both the base ("bottom") and corona ("top") in the case of circumference, thus 3 x 2 x 2 distinct types of measurement exist (6 measurements for length & 6 measurements for circumference). There is also another popular means of measuring circumference - at the thickest point along the shaft - and adding that method gives us a total of 6 measurements for length and 12 measurements for circumference.

Although this article discusses the three states (flaccid, erect and stretched) and the two attributes (length and circumference), there is absolutely no explanation of the difference between dorsal and ventral measurement of length. Nor is there any explanation of the difference between basal and coronal and thickest-point measurement of circumference. The entire article discusses measurements without ever specifying exactly which measurement is being referred to. This is a very major problem, as the reader can never be sure exactly what the article is talking about.

A precise description of length measurement (both dorsal and ventral) must be added, with full specification throughout the article of the exact type of each length measurement the article refers to in its discussion. And a precise description of circumference measurement (via base and corona and thickest-point) must be added, with full specification throughout the article of the exact type of each circumference measurement the article refers to in its discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

historical perceptions

In historical perceptions section the context of al -jihaz about ARABIC literature is wrong, so it is my Humble request to the administration to remove ISLAMIC names and context from this section. Zaib480 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2014 (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.[1] __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)

Who defines what rural or urban is? Is this a joke? --2.246.2.216 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

references

How can a page on about.com and pettingzoo.net be allowed as legitimate citations!?

If responsible people aren't looking after this page then it shouldn't be locked!!!

99.239.72.120 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't be. I've now removed those cites: however, the statements they supported appear also to be supported by cites to other sources, so I think it's probably reasonable to leave them in for now. -- The Anome (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New study: we have a systematic review!

I thought I'd just mention that there's a new study out, that's getting plenty of press coverage at the moment:

Veale, D.; Miles, S.; Bramley, S.; Muir, G.; Hodsoll, J. (2015). "Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15 521 men". BJU International: n/a. doi:10.1111/bju.13010.

The findings seem broadly in line with the other studies given in the article, which is reassuring. Since we now have a systematic review published in a peer-reviewed journal, we should probably be giving this priority over single-study peer-reviewed sources (of which, by the way, it gives an excellent list), and we should now be able to start purging non-peer-reviewed sources out of this article so that we can start moving it toward meeting WP:MEDRS. -- The Anome (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

change

Chemicals from both synthetic (e.g., pesticides, anti-bacterial triclosan, plasticizers for plastics) and natural (e.g., chemicals found in tea tree oil and lavender oil) sources have been linked to various degrees of endocrine disruption.

to

Chemicals from both synthetic (e.g., pesticides, anti-bacterial triclosan, plasticizers for plastics) and natural (e.g., chemicals found in tea tree oil and lavender oil) sources have been linked to various degrees of endocrine disruption.

because

correct typesetting of parentheses and footnote reference; explanation: footnote does not anchor on the word "oil", but on the list of examples.

( btw what is wrong with people, when it comes to penes!? this is the first "semi-protected" page i have encountered and didn't know this was even a thing. :( )

Karlos77 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In your please change "X" to "Y" your "X" and "Y" are identical (yes, I checked the source code too, and they are identical there as well), so it isn't clear what you want changed exactly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Double checked, both snippets are indeed not identical and the change is included as intended and my descriptions is specific. I do not know what else to do. Maybe you should just trust me and paste it or use a proper diff tool? ;) Karlos77 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 14:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

False interpretation of scripture

The scripture (Ezekiel 23:20) used in this article refers to those men "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses"; that is to say, they acted like wild asses. This scripture has nothing at all to do with the man's part, but rather an ill translation of scripture on part of the English Standard Version's counsel. It should be omitted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellynn7 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Large penis image?

I'm not sure what value an image of Jonah Falcon has to the "Studies on penis size" section. A picture of a 'big one' would be more educational. An image of Falcon's penis would have worked, but I don't think he's ever shown it publicly. We could still link his name somewhere in the article. Karyn Devlin (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm removing Falcon as it's a new addition that, well, adds nothing. Karyn Devlin (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Women call a guy small penised as an insult

It should be pointed out that women call a guy small penised as an insult, therefore women think of small penises as a negative trait in men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.217.255 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2014

A reliable source would be needed for that. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what women think you dumb ape.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 

Indeed. All the (anecdotal) evidence points to women being far less concerned about penis size than men think they are, with (if anything) a preference for relatively average-sized penises over both very small and very large ones. -- The Anome (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: we now have a handy peer-reviewed 2015 study of the preferences of a panel of 75 women, showing averaged penis size preferences that can best be summed up as "upper end of normal for length, average for girth". -- The Anome (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Image showing measurement of length is incorrect

Veale recently affirmed that variability in penis measurement should be reduce by using pressed measurement where the ruler is pressed to the pubic bone. This reduces variability due to fat around the base (pannus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.232.223 (talk • contribs)

Indeed. (Do you have a cite for that? It would be useful to have...) However, I don't think pannus is necessarily the right word for what you're talking about, except possibly in very rare cases. Perhaps suprapubic fat might be a better term? -- The Anome (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

—

Error under Erect length category

The study on Italians posted under erect length was not a study for erect length. They measured stretched length only as stated in the study. Stretched length is not to be confused with erect length. Stretched length is the penis stretched in its flaccid state, and it doesn't automatically translate to erect length.

That particular study was based on Italian boys not even finished with puberty yet, it shouldn't be on this page presented as a size average for average adults in the first place because it's decieving. Most males don't finish puberty until 20-21. Most of the boys studied in that study were 17 years of age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:F9F3:363B:5BCF:64E6 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)