Talk:Human penis size/Archive 9

2021 Kings College London Study
A study "To investigate a novel methodology and explore whether artificially reducing the depth of penetration during intercourse matters to women.", was conducted by kings college London. Makes the empirical observation that a reduction in 15% penetration causes an average decrease in score of satisfaction out of 100 by women of 18. It could be added to 1.9 'size preferences among sexual partners'. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33793040/ 2A02:C7F:3A87:9A00:CE9:B1A:1856:83BB (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Becomingmichef. Peer reviewers: Iconoclaste33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Penis image
Hello. I am starting this topic regarding the image you added to the "Race and penis size section, here []. My issue was not, as you seemed to perhaps have mistakenly thought, with the caption or link you added, which explains that "alleged differences in races have led to the creation of sexual myths" (and links to "sexual myths). I have no disagreements there, and I have retained your caption/text and link in my latest edit (here: []). My issue was rather with the photo you added of two erect penises (one belonging to a black man and one to as white man). The photo, according to its description, was your own work, and seems unlikely to be WP:RS. It also, according to its description, depicted a white man with a penis length of 14 cm and a black man with a penis length of 15.6 cm. These examples are different sizes and seem to conform to the aforementioned sexual myth (albeit not too substantially/excessively since the difference amounts to less than an inch, i.e. about .6 inches). Since your caption (as well as the following studies and text) explain that the racial size difference is a myth. It seems unclear why you would use such an image (which would then seem to undermine the former). Skllagyook (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in a bit of a hurry now, but will respond with the note that the photo is not my work ...? It's not me, I didn't take it, I didn't make the collage, I didn't upload it on Commons. I don't know where you saw that? . In short, the page has only white penises, you can't have an entire page dedicated to an external organ and solely include white people. We are past that. Feel free to add any photo you like to the article, I am not inclined necessarily towards one or another, just as long as it represents the world in which we live. That was one fitting based on the paragraph and the difference in size is hardly noticeable anyway. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this. []. It says "own work". But I see that the editor who uploaded (and evidently created) it was not you, but rather a user Richardnixon45 (whose few edits seem to relate to penises). So my apologies on that point (i.e mistakenly thinking it was your work). Regarding the rest, I will get back to you as soon as I can. Skllagyook (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whenever you are ready ... Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. However, I don't think increasing the representation of non-white penises on the page justifies adding an image that undermines the point and statements of the caption and in fact the content of the section (depicting a black and white penis that conform to an unfounded stereotype in a section that discusses/presents the evidence against said stereotype).Skllagyook (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The image doesn't undermine the statements as it is a difference of one cm which is not even noticeable unless you go into the description of the photo. Alecsdaniel (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain how noticeable it is. It seemed borderline noticeable to me (though perhaps not very), which was my concern (that's what led me to check the description). Skllagyook (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, if you feel that the picture does not represent the paragraph accordingly, you are free to add another picture instead, in that section or any other. My point is only that we can not have a page referring to human anatomy representing only one skin color. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That assumes I would be able to find a similar image (i.e. of - aprox. same size - white and black penises side by side in the same way with their respective measurements noted, that Wikipedia would allow me to post (for copyright reasons etc.). Such pictures are not very common to my knowledge. I have no idea how to find one nor do I have the tech skills to make one (by putting two penis images beside each other). Nor would I know where to find acceptable images of penises generally. If you wish to introduce an image of a non-white/black penis to the page, it seems to me, it might make more sense to use an example that does not highlight race so much (i.e. compared to a white penis in the section on race - but perhaps instead a single example added to another section) and that does not conform to/reinforce racial stereotypes.Skllagyook (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like an awful lot of work for a difference that's barely around 1 cm. I propose adding the comparison back with a description you see more fitting to it. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how a different description would help the situation. If anything it would seem likely to make it worse if the same image is used (I had no problem with your description). Skllagyook (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Bad sources and misquotations
In Size and race you use some questionable sources

A study of 253 men from Tanzania found that the average stretched flaccid penis length of Tanzanian males is 11 cm (4.53 inches) long, smaller than the worldwide average, stretched flaccid penis length of 13.24 cm (5.21 inches), and average erect penis length of 13.12 cm (5.17 inches).[15]

This study wasn't done on adult men and the length wasn't even quoted correctly, so it should be discounted in this discussion.

The study itself says:

In 253 Tanzanian males 10 to 47 years old mean ± SD penile length in adults was 11.5 ± 1.6 cm

The study says 11.5 cm, but the article quotes it as 11 cm. And a study which where 159 out of 253 weren't adults yet should obviously not be used, as they obviously did not finish growing yet.

And it's obviously not fair to use a study that was done on kids that haven't even finished puberty yet.

Studies that measured adult black men reported much higher averages: Barboza et al 2017 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-017-0009-z?WT.feed_name=subjects_psychology) reported an average of 16.5 cm for Black men Pereira et al 2004 reported an average of 17.64 cm for Black men (https://en.calameo.com/books/0057717798134432a01f4)


 * The 11.5 cm figure is the figure explicitly given for the adults. That figure, according to the study, did not include non-adults. I corrected it from 11 to 11.5. Skllagyook (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Errors regarding the Veale review
This article says

>A 2015 systematic review published by Veale et al. of medical research on the topic over the previous 30 years published in BJU International showed similar results, giving mean flaccid, stretched non-erect, and erect lengths of 9.16 cm, 13.24 cm, and 13.12 cm respectively, and mean flaccid and erect circumferences of 9.31 cm and 11.66 cm respectively. Erect lengths in the included studies were measured by pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone, and flaccid or erect girth (circumference) was measured at the base or mid-shaft of the penis

The point about pushing to the fat pad isn't true.

In addition to lots of other mistakes (reporting wrong number of participants, reporting wrong correlation for height and penis size, using an impossible low standard deviation of 0.1 for a study that didn't report one, etc) the review by Veale was actually done very sloppily in regard to accounting for different measurement techniques.

It's true that he mostly used bone-pressed studies, but that's probably because that's how most studies measure.

He also included several studies that were done without pushing into the fat pad like Promodu 2007 and Sengezer 2002. He also used the 12.89 cm NBP (not pushing into the fat pad) result of Wessels et al 1996 instead of the 15.74 cm BP (pushing into the fat pad) result.

Which is also why the stated average is lower than what it actually would be if he used consistent measurement techniques.

It also puts this following sentence into question

>A 2015 systematic review of 15,521 men found "no indications of differences in racial variability", and stated that it was not possible to draw any conclusions about size and race from the available literature and that further research needed to be conducted.

As he the racial differences would have been apparent if he would have been consistent with the measurement techniques, as studies done for example in primarily White countries have much higher averages than studies done in primarily Asian countries.

For example Choi et al 2011 reported an average of 11.7 cm for Korean men, while Bondil et al 1992 reported an average of 16.74 cm for French men and Wessels et al 1996 an average of 15.74 cm for American men.

By not accounting for the difference between studies that pushed into the fat pad and studies that did he accidentally buried this fact. DomoTheD (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

We should use consistent measurement techniques
Most of the reported studies in this article use the medically-accepted standard of pushing the ruler into the fat pad, which is known as a bone-pressed measurement.

>In a study of 80 healthy males published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology an average erect penis length of 12.9 cm (5.1 in) was measured

Here the non-bone-pressed result of Wessels et al 1996 is given even though this study also provided a bone-pressed result of 15.74 cm in Table 1

It's just not consistent if most studies that are reported here push the ruler into the fat pad, but for arbitrary reason we report the much smaller non-bone-pressed result of a study that also provided a result for a measurement that's in line with other studies. DomoTheD (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Teen shaved erect penis.jpg

growers vs showers
I don't think that is a significant enough topic to be included here. I doubt that readers are interested in the fact some men are growers and some are showers, both of which terms, although being referred to as colloquial, nobody has ever heard of despite the definition of colloquial being "used in ordinary or familiar conversation". The details of the study are behind a paywall so it's hard to determine if it is otherwise flawed. It's one of those who cares things even if true. The dif is about 1/3rd of an inch. How obscure do we want to be?

Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I do think this is an interesting topic. The reasoning being, as a female I am used to seeing penises when they are in their "grower" form. I never thought about the implications of this until I realized most dudes see other dudes penises in the "shower" form. So for example, when dudes want to argue about whose penis is bigger or they are in a locker room it's typically based on flaccid penis size. It only dawned on me recently that dudes wouldn't have penis size battles with their penises hard.
 * If i can speak for women, we don't care about flaccid penises that much, if at all. Which is strange because I read that studies about which penises women prefer is based on flaccid penis ... very odd. My point is, Women don't care if you have a 2 inch flaccid penis if that penis becomes 8 inches hard. If you have a 4 inch flaccid penis, that is also 4 inches hard... good for you. Know what I mean? For me, the 2 inch flaccid grower wins. for dudes, the 4 inch flaccid wins.
 * but you're saying the difference is limited to 1/3 an inch? i'll have to re-read...
 * I'll agree with you about the picture though... TheRightofHerWay (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent measurement techniques and other errors regarding methodologies.
This site mixes bone-pressed (BP) and non-bone-pressed measurements (NBP) without mentioning it. That's just not consistent.

In a study of 80 healthy males published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology an average erect penis length of 12.9 cm (5.1 in) was measured

The 12.89 cm is their NBP result, but in Table 1 they show that the BP average was 15.74 cm

A study published in the December 2000 International Journal of Impotence Research found that average erect penis length in 50 Jewish Caucasian males was 13.6 cm (5.4 in) (measured by staff)

This is a BP measurement. It's just inconsistent to start out with an NBP average and follow up with a BP study without mentioning the different measurement techniques.

A 2013 study of 253 men from Tanzania found that the average erect penis length of Tanzanian males was 13.12 cm (5.17 inches)

This study used stretched flaccid length, but only applied gentle tension which underestimates erect length as it's only a valid approximation under maximum extension.

It also wasn't 253 men. That's the whole sample which ranged from 10 to 47 years. It was 93 men in the adult aged group.

In addition to only using gentle tension it also wasn't done on fully grown adults, as this study mentions However, by age 19 years only 69% of males were Tanner 5, suggesting that not all of these adults were sexually mature. and More than 30% of adults in this study had not yet attained sexual maturity and they may not yet have achieved adult penile size

An Indian study (published in 2007) of 301 men ages 18 to 60 published in the International Journal of Impotence Research found flaccid, stretched and erect length to be 8.21 cm (3.23 in), 10.88 cm (4.28 in) and 13.01 cm (5.12 in), respectively

This is NBP again.

We should clean this up and try to use consistent measurement techniques. DomoTheD (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Errors regarding the systematic review of Veale
Erect lengths in the included studies were measured by pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone, and flaccid or erect girth (circumference) was measured at the base or mid-shaft of the penis

That's not true. Veale falsely states that he only used such studies, but the reality is that almost none that he included actually did pushed the ruler into the fat pad.

They used 4 studies for erect length, but 3 of them were done without pushing the ruler into the pre-pubic fat pad.

Schneider was the only one they cited that was done bone-pressed.

Sengezer and Promodu were measured without pushing into the fat pad.

Wessels reported a BP average of 15.74 cm, but Veale cited the NBP average of 12.89 cm DomoTheD (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Length graphs: BP/NBP?
Both graphs' description ought to mention whether these values are based on non-bone-pressed or (I think they are?:) bone-pressed measurements. Not doing so is a significant source of confusion due to both measurement easily differing by at least 2cm even for a slim man.

Actually, I'd also say that this should further be repeated in the text directly where measurements are mentioned (2nd paragraph introduction & the various sections in Studies) due to it again being confusing otherwise.

NB: While it's mentioned (as bone-pressed) for Veale et al. in Studies's second paragraph: ① People might skip the latter to directly read the main sections. ②: That paragraph doesn't mention its study's name, whereas the graphs' don't mention this author's name — so it's not apparent to the reader that they refer to the same study.

-- 2003:EA:F10:7A00:FA9E:94FF:FEEC:9B31 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point. But first you would have to explain the point in the main article, because the average reader (especially a non-penis-having one) might not catch your drift. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No need to show an erected male penis
Come on, show some decency. 62.226.85.197 (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, please read Wikipedia is not censored.
 * And obviously there is a reason why we use a drawing for the top image and not a photo like usual.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate (?)
We are still children under 18 age, why does the image show us this? Oh my god, that's disgusting. JimiDragon (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because you clicked on Human penis size. Why did you open this page? Did you want to educate yourself about sexuality? Were you curious? Did you wonder about human penis size? That's ok. Why do you feel human penises are disgusting? Do you live in a society where human penises are taboo? That sucks. Darsie42 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just use diagrams no one wants to see a real photo you pulled from a porn site. Some people are curious that’s what wiki is for but people don’t want to click then boom. Gex273 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

White penises only?
The images in this article could do with a bit of racial diversity. 2A02:A020:45:35E8:489E:8AFF:FEC9:CE21 (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * agreed TheRightofHerWay (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * are you serious? there's no reason for "racial diversity" on a wikipedia page about penis sizes. 2600:1702:170:2D30:54C8:1ADF:EE22:D323 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also agreed.
 * To the previous point, isn't it much weirder to argue that a wikipedia page about penis sizes should only show results from a single ethnicity and body type? How would you even figure which body type would be the most representative? (All examples have very pale skin and a thin-waisted build.)
 * Realistically, if you're on this page, you're here to see a range of examples of different body types by definition.
 * Here's another reason - the article has an entire section of "Size, race, and ethnicity." It's notably the only section of the article with no illustration, which may be to avoid stereotyping but I'm sure could be sourced from any of the sources cited in that section.
 * The list of studies in the article highlight sources from Tanzania, India, and Korea. Where are the illustrations from or about those sources?
 * Try not to think of it as forcing any politics but as adding information that makes the page obviously incomplete.
 * 32.221.6.3 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)