Talk:Human penis size/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Find a source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2 or 2.5 Standard deviations? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gaussian distribution removed

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence and Data on Size from http://www.the-penis.com/mythsandfacts.html 

message: "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)
thread_title: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH21.HTM

message: 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)
thread_title: on Fanon 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article error?

message: 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)
thread_title: on Rushton

message: 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)
thread_title: Biological Reasons

message: *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)
thread_title:  LifeStyles condom study 

message: 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. LizardWizard 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. LizardWizard 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)
thread_title:  Race and Google Answers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Penis Enlargement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. LWizard @ 21:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Folk wisdom