Talk:Human penis size

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Human penis size is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Human penis size was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 16 September 2006
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1: January 2004-December 2005
  2. Archive 2: January 2006-December 2006

Contents

[edit] Rushton not a reliable source?

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

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

You won't be able to take a NPOV on the subject if you only quote anti-racists. Rushton is a controversial scientist, but one who has supporters in the scientific community, publishes in mainstream journals, and maintains his professorship at the University of Western Ontario.--Ty580 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and Penis Size and Condom Use

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

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

This is a silly section to have in such an article - and I think that there are a few users of Wikipedia who have an agenda to indefinitely progress and extend this section every time a study is published in the hope that they racially categorise people of the world on their penis size. I'm quite flustered that these people should be allowed to pursue this racist agenda (though it has been toned down recently with specific region headings having been removed). Even if under non-ideal world conditions, this section was pursued, how can you compare different studies when each has measured a different proportion of a population, and that proportion might be from one section of a vast land? Lets take for example a section of this article that tries to convey the size of penis in India, where according to the article "Over 1,200 volunteers from the length and breadth of the country had their penises measured precisely, down to the last millimetre" - according to the CIA World Factbook, as per a July 2006 estimate, there are 1,095,351,995 or 1 billion and 95 million people in India and so one would have to question a) the validity of the study as a whole, if we're to use this as a benchmark/reference for human penis size in India, and b) its usefulness in comparison to other studies where less or more than 1,000 odd people may have been measured. I hope someone here can do something about this. Volatileacid 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be making two types of objections, so let me rephrase them to see if I have them clear.
  1. Wikipedia should not report on racial differences as a matter of principle.
  2. The current studies we cite are scientifically flawed.
The first one, I think you must admit, is censorship. I think this is why you didn't argue it very strongly. As to the second, the policy of no original research prohibits amateur critiques of studies. If you can find another reliable source pointing out methodological flaws with the study we can rethink the study's inclusion. Otherwise, I'm inclined to trust scientists more than you. LWizard @ 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your first point, can you think of another article that tries to racially profile people in this way? and secondly the fact of the matter is, if you're going to use studies, scientific or not in a head to head comparison, the studies should ideally be conducted under similar circumstances, using a similar quota of people etc. It doesn't matter if there are five studies, all scientific, but if all were conducted using different parameters, comparison becomes nigh on impossible. Oh and finally, 'Study's' should be Studies ... just thought I'd point that out seeing as your profile says you're a 'Grammar Nazi'?!!? Volatileacid 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Other articles that racially profile people, off the top of my head, are human height and Tay-Sachs disease. I agree that similarly-conducted studies would be better than the disparate studies we have now, but we are stuck with what we have. Analogously, our article on the Fine-structure constant cites two different studies with different methodologies. Finally, while I welcome constructive criticism about my grammar, I actually wrote exactly what I intended. Your suggested emendation makes a nonsense sentence. LWizard @ 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Indians are not a race, and neither are Jordanians. India has Caucasian people (Sindhis) and Mongoloid people also (Mizo,Kuki people). Which "race" are they referring to when they say "Indians"? Jordan is a country of Arabs mainly. So are Jordanians representatives of all Arabs??? Please see anti-Arabism and associated stereotypings. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
These are all Indians.Are they the same "race"? Indians are a nationality, not a race.
Apatani tribal women
Kalash Woman
Kalash Woman
Brahmins from South India
Brahmins from South India
Rumpelstiltskin223 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't sidetrack the conversation. Anyway, the Kalash is an ethnic group that lives in Pakistan, and I see no difference between Shabana Azmi, Mamta Kulkarni (both of whom are actresses) and the black and white picture of the Brahmins?! (Brahmin is a caste if you didn't know). And I think you might be trying to saying that Indians are an ethnicity? Please try and get your facts right.Volatileacid 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually there are some Kalash people in Himachal Pradesh also. Shabana Azmi is of Arab descent, Kulkarni is a Maratha woman. Brahmins are a "Caste" and come in many "races" (black, white, even Mongoloid in Assam and West Bengal). I am saying that they are all "Indians" and they are not a "race". NO academic or credible scholar says that there is such a thing as an Indian "race", then why is this section on Indians listed under "race and penis size"? Thanks for formatting the pics btw. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If it will arouse less animosity, I would be open to rewordings of that paragraph that change "Indians" to "Mumbaians," though this may be difficult since we (obviously) can't edit direct quotes. LWizard @ 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Mumbaikars are not a race either, anymore than New-Yorkers are a race. Why is this lited under "race and penis size" is what I want to know. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course neither Mumbaikar nor New Yorker is a race. However, Mumbai and New York have different racial make-ups. So from knowing the average penis size in New York and the average penis size in Mumbai, you can infer something about differences in penis size by race. You can't come directly to definite conclusions (because one race's large penises may statistically cancel with another's small ones), but the studies still have value with respect to race. LWizard @ 09:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
But the BBC article says nothing about race as a factor in the study involved. It refers to Indians (rather bizarre, even for BBC) so claims for a linkage with race-related studies constitute a WP:NOR violation. In fact, the standard stereotype in India is that Punjabi and Gorkha men have the largest penises "in the world".Rumpelstiltskin223 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia users shouldn't use results of a study to further their own agendas when the studies identify their own results as inconclusive and/or not statistically significant. We don't need to find sources to prove that other sources are unreliable, when there's no reason to support the inclusion to begin with. The existence and publication of an article does not necessitate it's inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
We could certainly remove the FHI study, since it seems to be statistically insignificant. As to the inclusion of other articles, I think that information relevant to the subject of the article should be included. LWizard @ 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any reason to retain the information about the FHI study? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.5.224 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Race and Penis Size

This section exludes information about hispanic/latino men. The sources cited are a seemingly random assortment of studies, none of which discuss hispanics/latinos to any extent, nor do they provide conclusive, statistically significant findings. The mess in this section is equivalent to googling the words penis, size, and race, and picking the top results and copying and pasting. The wikipedia article on race also identifies many other groups not clearly defined as part of any of the current sources. What are some of them considered? the Indians, Alaskan Natives, American Indians, Jews, Arabs, Northern or Eastern Europeans, East Africans, Indigenous Australians? Are any of these groups even represented by the current sources appearing in this section? We don't need to, nor can we discuss every group of people that consider themselves their own race, but this section is dire need of clean-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Article Length

This article is really long. As if someone is compensating for something.

[edit] Vulvar stretching [removed]

I've removed this text because it's uncited and seems dubious. WP can't cite original research.

Additionally, some claim that if a penis is thick enough compared with the vaginal opening, i.e. vulva, stretching will occur.[citation needed] This stretching can supposedly cause the clitoral hood to pass back and forth across the clitoris, which would provide additional stimulation of this large concentration of nerve endings. This stretching is claimed to pull the clitoris down into the path of the thrusting penis, causing it to make contact with, and rub across, the top, or dorsal, section of the penis. This may facilitate even greater clitoral stimulation.

--Ty580 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote this originally. This type of stretching, although not documented in any medical journals, can be seen to occur on occasion in pornographic videos. It is most easily seen during the cowgirl/woman-on-top position, especially if the woman is leaning back slightly. It can also be observed during the missionary position, although that is somewhat less common. This type of stretching is much more likely to occur during a state of high sexual arousal for the woman. It usually preceeds those rare occasions where orgasm is actually reached during a pornographic scene. Again, these facts can only be considered anecdotal at this time, failing the citation of original research. I could even post photographic or videographic evidence of this phenomenom, but that would not be sufficient to prove anything.
--Solcis 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Race = 50 warnings --AnYoNe! 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Is my penis average for my age?

Hi, I'm 15 and my penis is just above 5.5 inches. Is that average for for someone my age? I've read that the penis grows up until you're about 18. How much should it grow in those 3 years? I've read things stating that I'm below average and things stating that I'm at the average range. which one am I? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiimo (talk • contribs) 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Read this. Your size is average. Unless you started puberty later than average, it is only likely to grow a few millimetres longer. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image: Priapus figure from pompei.

It's interesting that a whole section is dedicated to Romans and Greeks thinking big schlongs were uncouth, yet there's a depiction of Mars right there in all his glory with a three foot dong. Further an interesting postcard a frind of mine took a photo of [1] depicts pompeian art yet again depicting massive penis in a good light.

I think we need more sourcing and more extrapolation. 211.30.71.59 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection

I have semi protected the article for a week as there has been a heavy ammount of IP vandalism to the article recently, once the protection expires, I will keep a look out on it and maybe incease the time if the vandalism continues. I am more than happy to review this if anyone has concerns Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of “micropenis”

The expression “2.5 standard deviations” does not say anything to me. How many percent of the average is that?

2007-03-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.229.19.25 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] semi protection 2

I've protected the article for a further month, once this expires, and if vandalism continues, I will extend it further, regards Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to the g-spot

This article writes about the g-spot as if there is no question to its existence. In fact, the vast majority of research into this topic has found that it is likely a myth. I don't think this is the place to expand upon the intricacies of the g-spot mythology, thats done in the article on the g-spot. I think the best way to handle the issue would be to just eliminate references to the g-spot in this article. It doesn't seem to be important. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Tmtoulouse 18:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHuman_penis_size_376f.html"