Talk:Human penis size/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Find a source

Could someone give me a source to a study showing that women who have only ever had one partner don't even think about penis size? I think its the fault of us men that women think about it. We encourage them to have multiple partners, not valuing their virginity, and then complain that our girlfriends and wives are comparing us to previous partners. Fact is, most women have their first orgasm at some point from a penis, "large" or "small", and are happy about it, and with the exceptio of micropenis, I'm sure any woman who can come can come with a below average-sized penis, and she can enjoy it her entire life, and not want anything else. Or, one of us men with a different penis can come along and try to do better, resulting in the whole issue of comparing penis sizes.--ChadThomson 07:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

23/4/5: I've added the witty riposte to the question 'how long is your cock?' published a few years ago. It belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, I think, but I'm not sure where. There's probably a better place ...

Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense - Omegatron 14:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

My edit was that the size of their partners, rather than theirs, might be of concern. I think that is fair, but may have been ambiguously worded. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to a class I'm taking in the Psychology department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the issue of penis size is mostly relevant to the Western world. Editing the article accordingly; if you disagree, please cite research stating the contrary before doing so. (The text book we use is Our sexuality by Robert Crooks and Karla Baur.) Dpol 18:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just checked the text book, and I can't find the text I was thinking of, it must have been mentioned in class. As I can't find a proper reference, I'll just refrain from editing the article. If anyone _does_ have a reference, please edit the article. Dpol 18:33, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

2 or 2.5 Standard deviations?

The micropenis article says a micropenis is 2.5 SD's or more less than average is known as a micropenis, whereas this node gives 2 SD's. Could someone with medical reference material or the appropriate know-how please make these articles consistent, or if there is no consensus, add that these are loosely defined terms? --fvw 00:42, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

It's like "short stature" for goodness' sake. I suspect 2 different people wrote the sentences in the two articles originally. Of course it's arbitrary! If you really want to know the real, actual, honest-to-God major purpose of the diagnosis "micropenis" it's so your insurance company will pay for the doctor consultation-- if we wrote "normal variation," you'd have to pay the bill yourself. (No offense intended of course... I just finished answering your quibble at talk:micropenis). If you want to check a penis growth curve, you can find one in Jones' Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation published by Saunders. Alteripse 01:45, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It makes sense that it's a fuzzily defined term, I just wonder if we should be giving exact numbers (without any indications of fuzziness like 'about' or 'approximately'), and inconsistent ones at that in that case. Have you got any preference for stating 2 or 2.5? I suggest we update both articles to give the same number using the word 'approximately'. --fvw 23:26, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

OK, you asked nicely and I'm feeling guilty for my sarcasm. Here are some specifics:

Grumbach MM, Styne DM. Puberty: ontogeny, neuroendocrinology, physiology, and disorders. Chapter 24 of Larsen et al. Williams' Textbook of Endocrinology, 10th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003. "The phallus is most accurately measured stretched while in the flaccid state as there is much variation between individuals in the length of the unstretched penis. The length of the erectile tissue (excluding the foreskin) increases from an average of 6.2 cm in the prepubertal to 12.4 +/-2.7cm in the white adult. Ethnic differences have been noted; the mean value in black men is 14.6 cm and in Asians 10.6 cm." (The reference for the last (politically incorrect) statement is Sutherland et al. The effect of prepubertal androgen exposure on adult penile length. J Urol 1996; 156:783-7.) However, there is some ambiguity in the paragraph: whether the "+/- 2.4 cm" is +/- 1 S.D. isn't made clear, nor whether both sentences are derived from the Sutherland reference or just the last. I think both, but I don't have the paper. Anyone with access to a medical library want to look it up?
Schonfeld WA. Am J Dis Child 1943;65:135, cited in appendix of Jones, ed. Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation Philadelphia: Saunders. At age 16, median, 10th, and 90th percentiles are given as 11.5, 8.9, and 15.0 cm, but the shape of the curve suggests a bit more growth may be remaining in the majority before maximal adult size is reached.
Penney R. Disorders of the testes. Chapter 10 of Kaplan S. Clinical Pediatric and Adolescent Endocrinology. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1982. He provides a table that gives adult stretched penile length, mean +/- 1 S.D., as 13.3 +/- 1.6 cm, with 9.3 cm as -2.5 S.D. and for this table cites Lee PA, et al. Micropenis. I. Criteria, etiologies, and classification. Johns Hopkins Med J 1980; 146:156.

It took me about 60 min to dig out and type these references, and I could probably find some more but they give you the flavor of what's out there. There is so much imprecision at the statistical edges that it doesn't have any practical difference to me (and I mean "practical" in the literal sense of daily "practice") whether we use -2 or -2.5 S.D. or whose paper you want to cite to the 0.1 cm. The real clinical problems lie well south of those criteria or have other evidence of trouble; the people at 3rd or 5th or 10th percentile are simply the "healthy but dissatisfied" to me and it's not always easy to help them see it that way in a constructive way. I hate encouraging people to turn human differences into diseases. Perhaps that will mitigate my dismissal of your questions last night, or at least help you understand. Please feel free to reconcile the articles. Alteripse 00:38, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That was very informative (once again I vote we change "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia, more than you ever wanted to know"). I've made the articles consistent, thanks for the good work. --fvw 02:01, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

Well, the article defines micropenises in terms of standard deviations of penis length, but doesn't tell us what those standard deviations are! Also note that the above references talk about stretched flaccid penises, not about erect penises like our article does. AxelBoldt 10:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand either of your points. The SDs are defined in each paragraph above: different for each study, but roughly 2 cm. Or am I missing your point? And I am missing your point about measuring flaccid vs erect. Could you spell it out?Alteripse 11:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Our main article penis size defines micropenises in terms of standard deviations of penis length. But it never mentions how long a standard deviation is, so the information is useless. Furthermore, the literature apparently defines micropenises in terms of flaccid penis length, but our main article seems to imply that erect penis size is to be used. AxelBoldt 12:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Axel, I was trying to figure out where you were coming from with those questions. I didn't write the "main article" but I provided the paragraphs and references above because the user above asked for them. Card carrying pediatric endocrinologists don't think any "average" body measurement is worth diddly if the range of normal for the population isn't specified by percentile or by SD. So I supplied the SDs for the data above. Feel free to substitute these data sets into the main article if you too like data with SDs better.

As for the flaccid vs erect measurement, you are being way too serious here. Think for a moment how the data was collected, who did it, how one would obtain data on enough erect penises to be statistically significant, why someone who did have access to a thousand erect penises would know or care what statistical significance is (imagine Francis Galton as a transsexual prostitute?), what ascertainment biases you would get if you tried, and what some of our congressmen would say if you applied for a federal grant to do it. If you ~~have~~ know of a better data set, this is wikipedia, so you are welcome to supply it.

My personal opinion, after having more try-to-be-therapeutic conversations about this than I ever wanted to, is that people come in all shapes and sizes. Someone who is convinced he has the equipment for the job really does have it, and someone who is convinced he doesn't really doesn't (though he is likely mistaken where his defect is located). It's really hard for a doctor to change the guy's conviction either way, and this article is way too long already.

Finally, don't you think this article reads like a transcript of a really earnest attempt by your average well-intentioned residence hall advisor to carry out a mandate from some dean who decided that all the freshmen need a "human sexuality" course because the administration couldn't trust him with a real task? Alteripse 22:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thousands of erect penises. Wow. I'm getting a stiffy just thinking about it.

Gaussian distribution removed

I removed If penis length followed a Gaussian distribution, about 0.6% of penises will be in the micropenis category. If there is evidence that the _causes_ of micropenis follow a Gaussian distribution, it's fine. Otherwise, its like using a study of those without a cold to estimate the incidence of colds: misleading. Jamesday 11:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure your statistical assertion is correct and I'm sure your comparison with colds is incorrect. According to [1] a normal distribution is usually a reasonably good model for sizes of body parts. The reason the cold distribution is irrelevant is because it discontinuously varies-- there is a tiny percentage of the population who at any one time who have colds. At the edges of any normal distribution of body part size or any other human measurement are the group of people who have additional variables which have a large effect on the parameter being measured. To make clinically useful probability distributions, the population of people who have a disease affecting the parameter in a large way must be excluded from the people who are otherwise normal but at the edges of the population distribution. Potential paradoxes arise when we label a certain small percentage of the population as if they have a disease (as in idiopathic short stature or micropenis) when the only criterion for the diagnosis is to be in the lowest x percent of the population. So intelligent clinicians recognize that a normal distribution is a useable and useful model, and know when it is useful to use the model and when not to. Many useful models are approximations, useful for some purposes but not for others. Sort of like whether you consider the earth a sphere. For most purposes we can accurately consider it a sphere but of course it isn't quite a sphere exactly for some purposes. I think your comment is misplaced pedantry unless you can offer an alternative model that is both more accurate and useably simple. Alteripse 03:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Measured by staff"

Is it possible that a partial explantation for the difference between self-measurement and medical measurement is that measurement in a clinical setting is somewhat off-putting, leading to a reduction in the size of the erection? It would be interesting to see the difference between self-measurement, measurements made by male staff, and those made by attractive female staff in a single set of studies. -- Karada 12:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article could be clearer on this point. In the modern world, penis size is measured by stretching the flaccid organ. It has been determined that a stretched penis is very close to the same size as a fully erect penis, without the variations that you mention. This fact is not mentioned in the article, and so the references to the size of flaccid penises being unrelated to their tumescent size is confusing. -Willmcw 07:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What? At the risk of divulging too much personal information, I attempted to fact-check the above statement. I found myself unable to stretch my flaccid penis to more than about 75% its erect length without inflicting pain. Perhaps the equal-length claim is not universally true of the male population, or do I have a rare medical condition? I suppose, in any case, that my observation falls into the category of original research and is therefore invalid. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:09, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Hmmm, maybe the fact is that the ratio of stretched to erect size is fixed, but not equal. Your observation may not have been in vain. I'll see if I can find the source and make sure we have that right. Inaccurate material of this type could be distressing. -Willmcw 10:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The other image that "measured by staff" conjures up is of a wooden meter measuring stick being used... -- The Anome 08:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence and Data on Size from http://www.the-penis.com/mythsandfacts.html

"The average size of black men is between half an inch and an inch bigger than whites, and Asians are on average about half an inch shorter in length. (But blacks come in all sizes. See Images of Size, which has a black men penis size gallery.) Penis girth seems to vary in proportion. And it appears that the vagina of each race is built to match! Here are some research findings:

We averaged the data on erect penis size and found the averages to be approximately: Orientals, 4 to 5.5 inches in length and 1.25 inches in diameter; Caucasians, 5.5 to 6 inches in length and 1.5 inches in diameter; Blacks, 6.25 to 8 inches in length and 2 inches in diameter. Women were proportionate to men, with Orientals having smaller vaginas and blacks larger ones, relative to Caucasians.

And apparently there are differences in testicle size as well:

Measurements taken from living subjects as well as those at autopsy, show the size of testicles is twofold lower in Asian men than Europeans (9 grams versus 21 grams), a difference too large to be accounted for entirely in terms of body size.

(Adapted from "Race differences in sexual behavior: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis." Journal of Research in Personality 21(4): pp. 536-7.)"

It is not appropriate to copy big blocks (or even small blocks) of text from commercial websites. I would suggest that you read the entire study that you cite. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushtonsxev.html. It is, as others have pointed out, written by Rushton, and contains no original research on penis size. -Willmcw 21:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you have the copyright for what you have posted? It appears that you are posting a verbatim copy of material on a commercial website, which is a violation of several Wikipedia policies. This has nothing to do with the matter of the article's subject, it has to do with how to edit an article. -Willmcw 22:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is the copyright notice from the website. If the info is posted again, it'll get a copyvio tag on it, which isn't good. -Willmcw 22:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH21.HTM

"Jacobus was a surgeon in the French army who served in various colonial outposts, particularly North Africa, during the 1880s and 1890s. Because he was a physician, he had the opportunity to examine the organs of many males and females. Thus, Jacobus writes:

In no branch of the human race are the male organs more developed than in the African Negro. I am speaking of the penis only and not of the testicles, which are often smaller than those of the majority of Europeans.

The genital organ of the male is in proper proportion as regards size, to the dimensions of the female organ. In fact, with the exception of the Arab, who runs him very close in this respect, the Sudanese Negro possesses the largest genital organ of all the races of mankind."

With exception to the Arab? Being Arab has as much to do with political and linguistic definitions as it does with ancestry. Jacobus' claims are dubious at best. Kingturtle 22:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- The text above is covered by this copyright notice: -Willmcw 22:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyright © 1994 Vern L. Bullough and Bonnie Bullough All rights reserved

on Fanon

Fanon was a political activist and was trained as a psychiatrist. His books were on psychology and freedom and colonialization. Not ANATOMY. There is zero EVIDENCE in his works for his unsubstantiated claims on penis size. Further, the point of his work is the psychological relationship between the races of which penis size is thrown in as an unproved example, not someting he scientifically studied and proved. Quoting fanon on penis size is like quoting the bible on atoms.

from http://www.bookrags.com/biography/frantz-fanon/

The Algerian political theorist Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) analyzed the nature of racism and colonialism and developed a theory of violent anticolonialist struggle.

Frantz Fanon was born in the French colony of Martinique. He volunteered for the French army during World War II, and then, after being released from military service, he went to France, where he studied medicine and psychiatry from 1945 to 1950. In 1953 he was appointed head of the psychiatric department of a government hospital in Algeria, then a French territory. As a black man searching for his own identity in a white colonial culture, he experienced racism; as a psychiatrist, he studied the dynamics of racism and its effects on the individual.

In his first book, Black Skin, White Masks (1952), Fanon examined the social and psychological processes by which the white colonizers alienated the black natives from any indigenous black culture; he showed that blacks were made to feel inferior because of their colo.....

What's your point? Rushton is a psychologist. Neither of them is trained as a sexologist. -Willmcw 22:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article error?

A whole section was deleted as an article error without explanation. This is not a productive way of editing an article. Please discuss what the error is. -Willmcw 22:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

on Rushton

Thanks for providing the link to Rushton's article.

From http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushtonsxev.html

"Differences in penis size between blacks and whites was a topic addressed by Nobile (1982) who published a table from Gebhard and Johnson (1979) from which statistically significant different averages were computed. The length of the erect penis for the white sample was 6.15 in. and for the black sample, 6.44 in"

So it has "no original" measurements. What's your point? What evidence is there that Rushton's source is unreliable? I'm not aware of any such evidence. If the sources are unreliable please point me to such evidence, or else leave the "blacks and whites have exactly the same size penis" section labeled "myths" out of the encyclopedia, if you please.

Rushton's source is no more reliable than any other - there's only a few studies. The way wikipedia works, in general, is to add information to refute faulty evidence - not to delete it. In any case, that is no reason to delete the rest of the section. There are other grafs in that section that have nothing to do with race. Why did you delete those too? Also, if you are going to be deleting stuff, please get a username. -Willmcw 23:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biological Reasons

A long page on everything about human penis size without addressing the size differences that exist between species and the evolutionary forces that dictate (haha) those sizes. I've seen several sources claim that there is a general rule at work, among mammals at least, that the larger the penis, the more different males swive with a single female. The evolutionary theory here being that getting the semen in deeper gives an advantage to siring a child. This is also closely related to testicle size, with larger testicles required when more sex is happening. This is used to explain why the giant male silverback gorillas have a very small endowment compared to humans: the alpha male doesn't get cuckolded because he has scared the other males off.

See for reference: Sexual Organs and Hereorchonic Theory

--Elijah 23:28, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Yes, sociobiology deserves some mention here, it is well established for testes size eg Sperm competition, and there is some theory that the shape of the penis glans is optimized to 'sweep' out competing sperm from a prior insemination, arguing for the prevalence of gang rape in prehistoric human evolution.

Or overall general promiscuity, like the Bonobo? 81.232.72.53 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Penis and index finger size

Although there's no relation between foot and penis size, I have heard in a study which measured various body proportions and suggested a link between the length of the index finger and penis. Go figure. I've no source on this, but if anyone's interested there's probably info on webmd.com or in fairly recent studies.

I think the above contrib heard something real, but has garbled it. My recollection is that the index finger is not involved, nor in fact any single finger: rather, a larger difference (i presume as a percent, not as absolute difference) between lengths of middle and ring fingers correlates with shorter penis size. --Jerzy (t) 19:07, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

It is to do with the testosterone levels as a fetus. Those with a bigger difference between the fingers were more masculane and had bigger mussles, more hair, etc. But I don't know if that extends to penis size.--Clawed 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your penis size depends on how much testosterone you were exposed to in the womb (I think around the 8 week period?) A way to check this is the length of your ring finger, as the longer this is the more testosterone you have. However to relate this to penis size you must compare the length of this finger to the length of the index finger as a ratio. Estrogen is responsible for the length of your index finger. Therefore proportionally:

long ring finger, short index finger = large penis

average ring finger, average index finger = average penis

short ring finger, large index finger = small penis

Shouldn't this be added to the "predictors" section of the article?!?!?

A doctor (may have been Dr John Bancroft) admitted as much on a Channel 4 documentary, "The Truth About Female Desire", who teamed up with "world renowned Kinsey Institute "

The discussion seems to go on and on about trying to correlate penis size to other body part size, but for some reason articles (like this one) always omit the primary logical basis of this presumption, being that male puberty includes hormonal enlargement of features: the genitals, hands, feet, nose, shoulders, etc. Even if no correlation is found, it's logical to assume that 'more puberty' means bigger hands, bigger feet, and a bigger wang.

Flaccid - Erect correlation contradiction

The article presently contradicts itself, saying at one point there is a direct correlation between flaccid and erect length, and then saying there is not. Which is it?

This, much like everything else pertaining to the penis, seems to vary from individual to individual. There are some whose penises do not grow more than a few centimeters when aroused. Equally true however, are stories of men whose flacid penises have a length of less than two inches, and circumference of even less, only to see them grow to seven inches in length, and circumference of approximately five inches. Again, I must stress that these are only individual cases, and every penis tends to vary.

definitive survey

why isn't the "definitive internet survey" included in the data section? - Omegatron 18:04, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is any internet survey worth using as a source? Self-selected surverys are usually considered to be statistically useless, IIRC. -Willmcw 19:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "The Kinsey Reports found in 1948 an average length of 6.20 inches (15.25 cm) with a standard deviation of .77 inches (1.96 cm). (Self-measurement)". Plus, we already said self-measurements are typically exaggerated from measurements done by other people, but only have the Kinsey survey as an example of the difference.

If you view the site they seem to be rather scientific about it, with >2500 adult subjects (other surveys should have subject number as well):

"The inclusion of minimal, and particularly maximal penile dimensions have caused many of you to question the validity of my data. Blatantly fraudulent responses (from 17 year old lawyers or those claiming "American Zulu warrior" ancestry, for example) are excluded from entry into the database as are penis lengths in excess of 360mm (14.2"). As an additional safeguard, the bottom 1% (for those 18 years and older) and top 2% (for all age groups) of each of the five penile measurements studied have also been excluded from the analysis. I realize that this is a rather conservative approach, but the fact that my results are very close to that reported by Kinsey et al. and the almost symmetric distribution of erect penis lengths, leads me to suspect that any residual and unavoidable contamination has been kept to a minimum."

Why not include it? - Omegatron 21:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Self-selected" and "self-measured" are two different problems, and this source has both. The size of the sample is irrelevant if it has not been randomly selected. The only men who participated in this survey are those who are connected to the Internet and are interested in penis size. I suppose it could be mentioned in some way, but the reference should include strong caveats about the value of the data. -Willmcw 22:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Size and Cultures

I always heard that, unlike most of cultures, in ancient Greece a small penis was considered desirable, and large penises were linked to bruteness and lack of spirit. I also heard that in the III Reich, the same discourse was sustained. Can anyone substantiate this?

I'd heard that about the Greeks, you should be able to find a source for that pretty easily. Never heard of the German discourse. -Willmcw 01:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm German, and you can be sure that penis- size wasn't a topic in the III. Reich. They had different topics to spend time on. Maybe it would be a nice to think of this topic, cause it kept them away from the other awfull stuff... Anyway its funny to read of the myths about the Nazi- time, even when the whole period wasn't fun at all.

Men who actually DO have small penises

I find it interesting that whenever the subject comes up, including in this article, there's a lot of talk about "men feel small when they are actually average" - but they almost always neglect men who actually ARE small. You have to understand that for every above average man with a large penis (ie. in porn films etc.) there is another unfortunate man who is that much BELOW average and has to go through life that way.

My point is that when it comes to penis size, helping genuinely average men feel better about being average is fine, but aren't we neglecting the men who really are below average and have to face all the stigma and fear from women and society?

We could certainly try to address this somewhat in the article, but we also need to avoid expressing our personal opinions and points of view. Some links to sites that address below average size issues would be helpful. func(talk) 05:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I think he's talking about. Look at this section on the main page

Recently, there has been greater media attention to the issue of penis size and women being more vocal about their preferences. Television shows such as Sex and the City and Ally McBeal popularized the penis size issue when characters in these TV shows stated their preference for well-endowed men over more modestly-endowed men. The media image of women's preference may have had an impact on some average sized men. In recent years, penis pumps, pills, and other dubious means of penis enlargement have had increased sales

See how it says that "average sized" men may have been affected by this episode? What about genuinely small men? I'd say they were mortified beyond belief. There is an over emphasis on making average men feel comfortable with their average sized penis, ignoring the far more serious plight of under-endowed men.

Serious plight? You are joking of course. I am a genuinely small man. Three inches long erect. Less than three inches girth. Please continue neglecting me. I am getting along fine. The pseudoscience and sheer patronizing idiocy going into this subject is breathtaking. If how I feel about myself and my sexual performance were to be affected by Ally McBeal et al's sexual preferences, I think I would kill myself. That would be mortifying.

LifeStyles condom study

What on earth is the LifeStyles condom study? I've never heard of it, and the article should explain what it was and what it purported to find.

see above (Lifestyle study results) --Raddicks 11:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nose

Statistical data suggests that while the urban legends about larger hands and feet implying a larger penis may be true, the opposite is the case for the size of the nose.

Do we have a source for the [negative] correlation of penis and nose sizes? Thanks -Willmcw June 30, 2005 23:22 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like it, nor for the claim about larger hands and feet. We might want to mention the common urban legend, but let's not make any claims about whether it's true. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:33 (UTC) Mind you, it does add a whole new dimension to the my dog's got no nose joke.

Bone pressed erect length vs Non bone pressed erect length

Does anyone know whether surveys account for the fat pad which could be between 1/3" to 2" in men? It might cause a statistical anomoly if it not bone pressed. Something we need to address Raddicks 14:05, June 28, 2005 (UTC)

This issue needs to be seriously addressed we cant ignore it! Raddicks 04:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Then find a verifiable source that deals with the issue. You may well find, if you carefully read the scientific studies, that it has already been taken into account. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pluralization

Every dictionary I've checked says both "penises" and "penes" are acceptable. "Penises" is far more common. Sadly, I don't have access to the OED currently so I can't speak definitively. If someone could check the OED on this matter, I'd appreciate it. LizardWizard 17:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Race and Google Answers

Thank you, Anon-68ish for bringing to our attention the Google Answer to the race/penis-size question. The information there should definitely be integrated into the article. However, just saying "there is a correlation" without even saying what that correlation is is not helpful. If the correlation is borne out by all the facts it will surely be in the article with a good discussion soon. I will help see to that.

If, instead, you insist your one-liner is better, mind that you don't fall on the wrong side of WP:3RR. Lizard Wizard 20:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so I went through the Google Answer and the associated links and these are the studies mentioned as having data and race and penis size:

Rushton, 87,88, & 89
Diamond, 86
Short, 84
Welles et al., 96
Masters and Johnson
Miller, 94

If someone wants to track these down and see what they say that'd be great, otherwise I'll get back to them later. Lizard Wizard 20:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If anyone else is interested, of the links given in the google answers thread, this one has a lot of information: http://www.neoteny.org/a/testiclesize.html --Nectar ^T 08:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Cold and shrinkage

I generally get larger when cold, what's all this about cold people losing circulation to the extremities? the penis is hardly an extremity, and you'd have to be pretty damn cold. generally i've found that when it's cold, circulation -increases- in an attempt to warm things.. with blood!

If what you say is true then you are definately an exception

It is, and isn't it true that blood flow tends to increase when you're cold? How else do you warm the extremities? Course I suppose hot blood also flows more when you're hot so it can cool off.. I think it's both, extremities are used as heat sinks so they also need more blood flow..

my wanger is always shrunken more by the cold, it hangs quite well when im hot however. You definately are an exception, and it is a extremity like the hands, feet, brain. --Raddicks 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. No original research. -Willmcw 07:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I shrink when I get cold. My hands and feet also get cold easily.

The reason for the shrinkage is for the same reason the penis is an external organ. Temperature control is needed for optimal sperm production, and the ideal is a few degrees Celsius below the average body temperature, so external is the way to go for increased air circulation. When it's cold, the testes and penis are drawn closer to the body to try and maintain optimum temperatures.

source please?

There's a sentence that says, "A Dutch study found in 2002 that about 20-30% of women consider the size of a penis to be important.." There's no source whatsoever or anything further. Shall I delete?

Poor source

Re the paragraph reading: -

Frantz Fanon covers this subject in some detail in Black Skin, White Masks (1952), where he tends towards the view that the supposed positive correlation between large penises and African ancestry is a myth, a conclusion that he backs up with statistics. On the other hand, J. Philippe Rushton has published statistics claiming otherwise (Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 1995). In support of Rushton's hypothesis on a priori scientific evolutionary grounds is the fact that Bergmann's and Allen's Laws state that organisms which exist towards the equator of a planet will tend to have more appendages, longer appendages, and thinner appendages.

Rushton's '95 publication is probably the poorest citation one could grab considering the amount of debunking of his work that has gone on. For example, the fact that the worlds smallest people come from equatorial regions shoots holes in the longer appendage theory. Jachin 02:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Rushton is one of the few citations readily available that actually purports to present data. Nevertheless, as poor as Rushton's publications may be from a scientific perspective, Fanon's argument is worse: his assertions are entirely ideological. No data whatsoever, but he is the epitome of political correctness. I think it better to leave both in, with perspective for readers, because if we take either out, someone is bound to re-insert references to one or both. alteripse 02:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Penis Enlargement

An unregistered User:203.194.35.83 deleted a portion that was referenced. The information came from a book written by a renown Gynecologist. Unless there's data to dispute his book and support the other alternatives, then by all means "chop away"..... Ariele 15:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits?

It seems that someone has added certain comments about, I quote, "niggaz" and "bitches" that are inappropriate in a wikipedia article. Should they be removed?

The chart is not quite accurate either. Should that be removed as well?

I don't see the words you refer to. Where are they? And how is the chart inaccurate? Do you have a better source? -Willmcw 04:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempted to correct. The new word added is circumference.

Studies

In the beginning portion of this page, there are two studies listed, which are preformed by UCSF, both of which are conducted by staff, and during the same year, and yet they have different findings. Only one of these findings is correct, and futhermore, may I ask User:Willmcw to delete one of them. He seems to be the expert on editing(based on his professionalism, and comments on almost every area of this talk page. --CivilCasualty 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact they are the same study. The difference is that in one place the results reported are length, and in the other they are girth. ^L_Wizard @ 21:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Folk wisdom

"One of these theories says that the size of a fully erect penis is the length from the tip of a man's thumb to the tip of his index finger, when a 90° angle is made with those two fingers."

At last, a use for all that piano practice. -- The Anome 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives