Talk:Micropenis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

I removed and rewrote some perfectly valid info to improve unity and flow. If it was yours, please forgive me. Also, I realize there is no intersex article yet, and it simply redirects to an inadequate intersexual article. I am in the process of writing it but won't replace the current version until finished. Alteripse 00:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

"Micropenis is a medical describing..." -- A medical term? A medical condition? A medical classification? A medical description? Andygoodell 01:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] "Assuming normal statistical deviation"?

I think the statistic of 0.6% assuming normal statistical deviation is misleading at best, unless somebody actually has some evidence that penis size is actually normally distributed. This theory is possibly credible at sizes around average, but I don't think it's realistic at the 2.5 SD's range (though I don't know if this will make the percentage higher or lower). fvw 00:35, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

"Misleading at best"? and what would you insinuate "at worst"? I'm not sure what your point is here. If you are disputing the validity of normal distribution statistics at the extreme ends of human size deviation, I can't argue. I am not familiar with all the published research on construction of normal ranges from body statistics. Many of our "normal ranges" for everything from body sizes to lab values are roughly equivalent to a 3rd to 97th percentile range, or a 5th to 95th. Physicians and others who use the statistics are aware of the arbitrary nature of the edges. Boundaries can be arguable or questionable for several reasons: (1) small enough sample size in the original statistics that the error range becomes significant at the edges of the distribution, (2) distortion of the statistics by a high enough frequency of abnormal causes that the numbers affect the distribution, or (3) a deliberate shift in favor of greater sensitivity to important disease states that overlap the normal range. So now since I put more effort into the answer than you put into your complaint, what do you think would be less misleading? How about a constructive contribution if you know more about it? Alteripse 01:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think less misleading would be not to give any statistics instead of calculating statistics based on premises that are probably not true. I don't know anything about the actual statistics, which is why I'm talking instead of changing the article directly. Pruning faulty data improves Wikipedia too. --fvw 23:13, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

See talk:penis size for answer. Alteripse 00:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Statistically, since the population of males is so large (three billion) a normal distribution of penis size can be assumed. Under a normal distribution, .6% of the results are outside of 2.5 standard deviations--Crucible Guardian 05:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that really true? As the sample size gets bigger the distribution tends to a normal distribution? I must have slept through that class. Also does this 0.6% or percentile definition mean that micropenis can never really be cured? If someone has surgery, he may not have micropenis any more but he has succeeded in creating micropenis in the next smallest guy? 19/08/05 Doesn't affect me BTW :) User:62.252.128.18
What do you mean by "has surgery"? Micropenis is pretty much incurable indeed The few options that exist can be found in Sex reassignment surgery female-to-male; since the options for a Micropenis or a lost penis are basically the same as for a completely construced ones, with some differences of course, but the main problem remains, namely "where to get the material from that we want to put there". I wouldn't exactly recomment any of those for "just" a Micropenis, and neither will most doctors. -- AlexR 13:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I came by this topic by way of this report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4071657.stm on the BBC website. The answer to your question seems to be "the forearm". I still think it's strange that by the definition of micropenis given in the wikipedia article, micropenis can never actually be cured; but merely transferred from one guy to the next. User:62.252.128.18 19/08/05
Well, that is one type of surgery I referred to above - nothing new there. Not that I'd recommend it, for a number of reasons. (One of them being the very nasty scar on the arm.)Also, it does not quite cure the underlying issue (pun not intended, but fitting anyway). The penis itself remains that small, it just gets some more tissue put on top of it. Same way some surgenons will replace a lost thumb with a toe - the thumb is still missing, only there is a sort of "organic prothesis" replacing it. (In the later case, usually a functioning one.) -- AlexR 21:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The "underlying" problem is that the penis looks small. It works, everything else is intact, so the only requirement is cosmetic. A scar on the arm is a small price to pay IMO.
Anyway I'm not sure why you objected to my use of "has surgery" when it is clear that surgery exists. My interest was more in the statistics and the definition. --62.252.128.18 07:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that I was commenting on a tangential part of cour comment. I also did not object to "has surgery" but to the assumption that after somebody had surgery, the unterlying condition would not exist any more. Nevertheless, to stick with the tangent for another moment - I doubt that you have ever seen such a scar. It's a triffle bigger than what you probably imagine - I am talking about scars like this: [1] [2] [3] or [4]. Of course, it is every person's private decision, but since what you get further down isn't always working as advertised, either - well, I personally would not recommend it; although the scar would in cases with Micropenis possibly - but not necessarily - be slightly smaller; those are transmen pictures. -- AlexR 09:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Here's some data to help settle this

Micropenis is a medical term. Unfortunately, like some medical terms, it may seem insensitive or insulting. But it's got a definition (albeit an arbitrary one). Smith's General Urology (McAninch, 2003) defines it as: "a penis smaller than 2 standard deviations from the norm."

And what is the norm? Winter and Faiman in 1972 did the grunt work:

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

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

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

I had to hunt the standard deviations for the Schneider article, which wasn't difficult, since the article is available online through our school library. Would someone make a trip to their local medical library to get the standard deviations for the other studies? There's an even older study by Schoenfeld and Beebe (1942) that may have different numbers. You may also want to get an article by Fischer (1964) that relates penis length to body height. In any case, it seems that these penis size, like most things in biology, does have a normal distribution.

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

[edit] References

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


I hope this helps settle some of the arguments here. Zyryab 05:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jackal?

Why is "Jackal" in the See Also section? Jona2112 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Micropenis in Asian Populations

I am advocating the editing/removal of this section, as it suggests that Micropenis is a rampant syndrome in Asian populations, when the cited study was conducted with primarily Japanese control subjects, with no comparison to other races. There is nothing in the cited article to suggest that the syndrome is more prevalant in Asians than in other races.

I've changed "high incidence" to "higher incidence" for clarity. The study refers specifically to higher incidence of the mutations in "Asian populations." --Nectar 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor re-phrasing of some of the possibly inflammatory words in the disputed section has been implemented. The results of Sasaki et al. suggests that "micropenis can be caused by SRD5A2 gene mutations, especially by R227Q", and that "[R227Q] appears relatively frequent in Asian populations." It should not be concluded that SRDA52 is exclusively responsible for the development of a micropenis, nor that the "frequent" presence of the aforementioned gene mutation in Asian populations signifies the frequent presence of a micropenis in that ethnic group.

I think there is now overwhelming evidence to support that asians have a higher incidence or more severe cases of micropenis. Hurimo 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to see that the politically correct stand of wikipedia didn't impede scientific truth this time. There was a lot of pressure (as you can see above) by many to declare this disease "no more significant" in asian populations than in other races. This goes completely against neutrality and the exposure of unbiased evidence as it is clear that indeed micropenis is more prevalent in asian males than any other race on Earth. In fact, the general perception of this issue is confirmed. Yuyucan 04:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue should not be offensive to asians since, of course, it is not saying that 100% of asian males have a micropenis. Merely, it is saying that the majority of asian males have it. Rerejs 04:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely true. Now that I think about it I have never ever seen a chinese, taiwanese, japanese, or any other asian in an adult film (unless it is chinese porn of course). Ratamff 11:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be an article on nanopenis. 74.230.23.197 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article has practically no citations, which is not that unusual for wikipedia -- however, if someone points out that something needs a citation, it's still incorrect to simply remove it with no explanation. The lack of citations in the "Treatment" section is particularly glaring. 67.101.221.84

[edit] Confusing sentence

"The condition is usually recognized shortly after birth, when the stretched flaccid penis of a full grown adult male measures less than 4 cm from base to tip."

This sentence makes no sense. If the condition is recognized "shortly after birth," what does the measurement of a "full grown adult male" have to do with anything?

If it's recognized shortly after birth, the measurement should be relative to other infants, not to adults.

Would whoever wrote this line please clarify?

Someone mangled the original sentence. You are right it makes no sense. alteripse 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could we please add this?

I feel that the page should contain "This sex-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"

[edit] Penis envy

Who's the joker who put in "penis envy" into the "See Also"? - Anonymous Template:Sunst:unsigned

It was inserted in this edit by User:Fastiflex. I believe it was a good faith edit, not a joke. I think you are correct, however, that does not belong in the article. --TeaDrinker 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMicropenis_ba33.html"