Talk:Human penis size/Archive 2

message: This article is way to sympathetic. I've noticed in the number of years of googling this question that the average keeps dropping. First you get studies that say 6'4" is the average, this is then dropped to 6'2"(Kinsey), then there is the generally accepted 6" amongst men journals(men's health mag). In most medical journals or websites answering questions about sexuality, growth and STD's they've dropped this figure to 5.5-7" range(ask alice). Im believing there is an incentive to make studies fall short of the actual range, and no offense to the Mexican studies but their racial penis size falls short of the typical European/American.
* There are a lot of websites that want people to think the average penis size is 6.4" so they can try to convince society to buy the penis enlargement products they desperately market. It is very cunning because they might not be selling enlargement schemes on that particular page where you see the average numbers. It is a big industry, and they are trying to have an effect on society as a whole. They mention it in forums, message boards, and sites that "look" like good resources. Sometimes innocent sites end up copying mis-information, and then it gets re-published. By the way, I'm not suggesting this is some sort of "conspiracy". It is just an overt attempt to deceive people. I used to be a volunteer editor for a site that had a penis survey. At any given time, about 40% to 45% of the responders said they were 8 inches or 9+ inches. There was no way in the world almost half of all men had 8 - 9+ inch penises. People are either joking, lying, or trying to spread mis-information all over the place. APatcher 17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the best run experiments seem to find that the number comes out smaller. That seems to point to the smaller number being more accurate.WolfKeeper 15:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: oh yes heres Lifestyle's measurings in detail which is accurate because the idea was to work out condom sizes.
The Lifestyles study in detail.
Length 
% of men (percentile)
3.50" to 3.75"
0.2 % (0.2%)
3.75" to 4.00"
0.3 % (0.5%)
4.00" to 4.25"
0.2 % (0.7%)
4.25" to 4.50"
0.7 % (1.4%)
4.50" to 4.75"
0.8 % (2.2%)
4.75" to 5.00"
2.0 % (4.2%)
5.00" to 5.25"
9.0 % (13.2%)
5.25" to 5.50"
10.8 % (24%)
5.50" to 5.75"
24.3 % (48.3%)
5.75" to 6.00"
23.9 % (72.2%)
6.00" to 6.25"
9.3 % (81.5%)
6.25" to 6.50"
6.7 % (88.2%)
6.50" to 6.75"
4.4 % (92.6%)
6.75" to 7.00"
2.9 % (95.5%)
7.00" to 7.25"
1.0 % (96.5%)
7.25" to 7.50"
1.0 % (97.5%)
7.50" to 7.75"
0.9 % (98.4%)
7.75" to 8.00"
0.8 % (99.3%)
8.00" to 8.25"
0.3 % (99.6%)
8.25" to 8.50"
0.3 % (99.8%)
8.50" to 8.75"
0.1 % (99.9%)
8.75" to 9.00"
0.1 % (100%)
Circumference
% of men
Under 3.00"
3.3 % (3.3%)
3.00" to 3.25"
0.4 % (3.7%)
3.25" to 3.50"
0.9 % (4.6%)
3.50" to 3.75"
1.1 % (5.7%)
3.75" to 4.00"
4.7 % (10.4%)
4.00" to 4.25"
6.3 % (16.7%)
4.25" to 4.50"
17.1 % (33.8%)
4.50" to 4.75" 
11.7 % (45.5%)
4.75" to 5.00"
24.1 % (69.6%)
5.00" to 5.25"
9.9 % (79.5%)
5.25" to 5.50"
11.5 % (91.0%)
5.50" to 5.75"
3.0 % (95.0%)
5.75" to 6.00"
3.9 % (98.9%)
6.00" to 6.25"
0.5 % (99.4%)
6.25" to 6.50"
0.5 % (99.9%)
6.50" to 6.75
0.1 % (100%)
 --Raddicks 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article too sympathetic

message: "Penis size is not related to height because it isn't bone", so Ears should also not be related to height and weight, right? Specially not to face size, right? Oh, and face size is not related to body size, probably true?
Any study of human body will show that everything is related. Size and mass does count on that relational harmony. And that does not exclude penis or any other part of it. It is important to notice that there is a part of the penis that is inside, hidden. And that's mostly what makes the difference of sizes among men. I could even bet that the human's unconcious mind can control that, so if you raise a kid telling him he has a small penis, so he will, and vice-versa. I'm just wondering how many studies take all that in consideration, because humans aren't that easy to grab data from... We have this little thing called envy and we usually use tricks too look good. It's only my opinion it makes us look usually worst than we really are.
I'm no expert in any area of medicine, but I do know a lot about a lot of things. English isn't one of them. I think probably, just like most of our "external looking" balance that we can study in arts (since the Greeks, 29 centuries ago or maybe even older), the size is also related to the golden ratio.
--caue 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratio-nal 

message: Cold Weather Adaptation
As my father would say, African-American males have what is known as a "shower dick", or, a penis that remains the same size whether flaccid or erect, while European men have penises which exhibit cold weather adaptation in becoming smaller after coitus.  African-Americans and their forebearers evolved in a tropical savanah climate, which is typically warm or hot.  Therefore, the penis remained distended to help radiate body heat to assist in cooling.  This is the same reason persons of African descent have tightly curling hair, to shield the head from the intense African sun. European males, on the other hand, generally lived in cool or cold climates.  The body, seeking to conserve body heat, adapted the European male penis to contract when not engaged in coitus.  This climactic adaptation was unecessary for African males.  The ultimate size of both races penises is approximately the same.  The question of penis size ultimately is one of environmental evolutionary pressures.  One is retractable, the other just stiffens with no appreciable increase in size, both being approximately equal in length.
Should this be perhaps added to the debate?
:Possibly the debate, but clearly not the article... 81.232.72.53 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest Penis?

message: I find it interesting that while there are multiple pictures to illustrate female breast size, there are NONE at this discussion of penis size.  So much for NPOV.  Pschemp 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good point.  It might be hard to come by public domain images of penises whose lengths we know/believe, but absolutely worth trying. LWizard @ 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a start: :Image:Penis_reduced.jpg - Samsara contrib talk 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's the collection from Commons. Lovely. - Samsara contrib talk 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: absence of pics especially stands out given the plethora of graphics in the anus article.
Upon browsing through the commons today, I chanced upon a picture that seems designed for this article.  How extremely fortunate. LWizard @ 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the pictures?

message: From the "Data" section:
The length of a stretched flaccid penis closely conforms to erect length.
...and 4 paragraphs later...
The length of the unstretched flaccid penis is no guide to the size of the erect penis; indeed, some men with small flaccid penes may have larger erections than men with larger flaccid penis
Which is it?
Hbackman 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes you quoted aren't contradictory.  Stretched does approximate erect length, unstretched does not. LWizard @ 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't contradictory, but the first isn't true. Macarion 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does stretching approximate erect length or not? 

message: I can't believe how much debate there is going on here. It's long been known that average length is between 5 and 7 inches - therefore the following table gives a good guide.
*0-1 Micropenis
*1-2 Very Small
*2-3 Small
*3-4 Below Average
*4-5 Small Average
*5-6 Average
*6-7 Large Average
*7-8 Above Average
*8-9 Large
*9-10 Very Large
*10-11 Huge
*11-12 Gigantic
There. Sorted. Now can we stop this pointless debate? 81.77.173.16 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, "It's long been known" isn't a very reliable source.  LWizard @ 17:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting through all the bullshit 

message: Winter and Faiman in 1972 made some measurements that may be relavant to the discussion here.
<TABLE BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=4>
 <TR>
  <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Age (Years)</TD>
  <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Length of Penis<BR>(cm ± SD)</TD>
  <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Diameter of Testis<BR>(cm ± SD)</TD>
 </TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>0.2-2</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>2.7 ± 0.5</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>1.4 ± 0.4</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>2.1-4</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>3.3 ± 0.4</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>1.2 ± 0.4</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>4.1-6</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>3.9 ± 0.9</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>1.5 ± 0.6</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>6.1-8</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>4.2 ± 0.8</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>1.8 ± 0.3</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>8.1-10 </TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>4.9 ± 1</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>2 ± 0.5</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>10.1-12</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>5.2 ± 1.3</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>2.7 ± 0.7</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>12.1-14</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>6.2 ± 2</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>3.4 ± 0.8</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>14.1-16</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>8.6 ± 2.4</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>4.1 ± 1</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>16.1-18</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>9.9 ± 1.7</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>5 ± 0.5</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>18.1-20</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>11 ± 1.1</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>5 ± 0.3</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER>20.1-25</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>12.4 ± 1.6</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER>5.2 ± 0.6</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
Does this vary among different populations? Sure. Shamloul, in 2005, summarized the data from 3 studies on penis sizes. I hunted another one by Son et al (2003):
<TABLE BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=4>
 <TR>
  <TD>Investigator</TD>
  <TD>Age Range (yr)</TD>
  <TD>Flaccid Length (cm)</TD>
  <TD>Stretched Length (cm)</TD>
  <TD>Erect Length (cm)</TD>
 </TR>
 <TR><TD>Wessels et al, 1996</TD><TD>21–82</TD><TD>8.85</TD><TD>12.45</TD><TD>12.89</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD>Smith et al, 1998</TD><TD>NA</TD><TD>NA</TD><TD>NA</TD><TD>15.71</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD ROWSPAN=2>Schneider et al, 2001</TD><TD>18–19</TD><TD>8.6±1.5</TD><TD>NA</TD><TD>14.48±1.99</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD>40–68</TD><TD>9.22±1.67</TD><TD>NA</TD><TD>14.18±1.83</TD></TR>
 <TR><TD>Son et al, 2003</TD><TD>19-27</TD><TD>6.9±0.8</TD><TD>9.6±0.8</TD><TD>NA</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
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. It seems people here care a lot about this issue, so I imagine a trip to their local medical library to get the standard deviations for the other studies wouldn't be too much trouble. 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 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. 
Yes BUT girth loosely correlates to size. AND the answers should be read as " 'more important' for any given length, not "short but thick" better than "long and thin". Come on, stop trying to find excuses and mislead people.
--Tallard 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some data for a change

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
I hope this helps. I swear, this is the longest talk page I've ever seen. Zyryab 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :http://singlesstop.com/advice/publish/article_344.shtml
This ref doesn't cite its source. Anyone know anywhere else this might be so it can be better referenced? Perhaps Guiness? --DanielCD 22:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref

message: :This appears to have been vandalised:
"The mean penile length +/- S.D. for the full-term baby was 3.6 +/- 0.4 cm. Race had a significant effect: Chinese 3.5 cm, Malay 3.6 cm, Indian 2.8, American 12.3 cm and Caucasian British 2.3 cm. In that study they also concluded that: "A newborn whose penis measures less than 2.6 cm has micropenis and may need prompt investigation for underlying endocrine disorders."  --Robert Merkel 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I removed this image (preserved with caption to explain context) on the basis that it adds no information to the article.  If it was somehow related to measurement of the penis, I'd support its inclusion; I'd also support its use in the penis article if there were no images of penises, or no image of erect penises.  But here it's just gratuitous. --Robert Merkel 08:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image 

message: The picture currently illustrating an "average" penis next to a measuring tape seems to be 8 inches long.  The article states the average is closer to 5.5" or 6".  Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.194.200 (talk • contribs) 
* Indeed, the picture does seem inaccurate.  The upward bend also makes it not quite average.  I'm removing it. LWizard @ 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption inconsistent with article 

message: I am 15 and my penis is 8 inches long. Is that normal? Jamie 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked troll. Skinnyweed 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree Tallard. People are using "normal" in the wrong sense of the word here. Wits 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  normal penis? 

message: Under 'Flaccid length', adjacent sentences say 'The length of a stretched flaccid penis closely conforms to erect length.', then 'The length of the unstretched flaccid penis is no guide to the size of the erect penis'. Then it says 'men with small flaccid penises may have larger erections than men with larger flaccid penises', then soon afterwards, 'it is generally accepted that every man's flaccid penis is approximately the same size'. Since none of these statements have a citation, I'm not sure what should be kept! -- Mithent 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't really so contradictory.  Here's the situation: Most men have roughly the same size flaccid penis, but there is some variation.  The variation is not a reliable guide to the variation in erect size.  However, if you stretch a flaccid penis (i.e. grab it and pull until it hurts) then this stretched length is a good predictor of erect size.  Does that help clear things up? LWizard @ 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Penis size and age:
The part of the article that talks about the penis size and the age is not as clear and specific as I would like, and because of that I could not find the information I wanted. It would be good that someone would make a chart with the standard erect penis length and circumference by age, mainly in the adolescence. 
Differences in the penis size between races:
I also wanted to know about the differences in the penis size between races (this article seems to be enough conservative and I have not found a final conclusion about this theme). Do those differences really exist?, and if the answer is "yes", which are they? Which is the standard erect penis size for black, eastern, native american, caucasian and hispanic adult males? I would like that someone would write about both lenght and circumference, but I am more interested in the first one.    
Measuring the penis:
A last question: when you measure your penis, shuold the ruler be oppressed against the bone, or should it be softly put on the skin?
: It is usual to press the ruler against the bone to avoid fatty tissue varying the result. Biggishben 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common doubts and questions 

message: In the 'Size at Birth' section, it is remarked that 'The average size at the beginning of puberty is 6 cm'. The editor needs to make changes declaring whether this refers to erect or flaccid length; 6 cm seems a little large for stretched flaccid length in prepubescent subjects in the onset of puberty.
Also, this article seems to focus on erect penis size, which is of no concern to me and many men like myself. It is more useful to know the average flaccid penis length. As well as that, other men such as myself will know that bigger penes do not mean greater pleasure for the women. It is known that in order to please a woman in coitus, one needs to rub against the clitoris as one thrusts in and out: this requires a medium lenth penis, not a very large one. The idea that a 9 inch penis can somehow be more pleasurable for a woman, is absurd.--213.40.3.65 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear info 

message: Personally I don't care what anyone's penis size is, much less what the statistics are by race.  But, if these data are referenced here, and quoted by sizesurvey.com, then it is necessary, and important to quote exactly by the referenced source.  In this source, it indicates in Figure 5. Caucasian = 6.0" in the red, Black = 7.1" in the green, Hispanic=5.9" in the blue, and East Asian=6.5" in the yellow.
The article also says, "Surprisingly, it would appear from Figure 5, that contrary to popular myth, Black males have shorter erect lengths than their Caucasian counterparts. However, due to the small sample size and large variation in lengths, this "difference" is not statistically significant."
Some may disagree with these numbers.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But, if sizesurvey is the cited reference, then the numbers have to accurately reflect that reference.  If you want to find other data, and cite a different reference and put it here also, or instead of this one, that's fine.  But, misrepresentation of the data, in fact indicating a point directly opposite of the cited reference isn't correct.
Tnanks, Atom 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly reverted your revert as we are not citing quotes here, and figure 5 has "Figure 5. Mean (±s.e.)" so it would appear that mean being a more accurate term should be used. We must include metric conversions and format measurements correctly as per the manual of style and place the original measurements first with conversions second (all the inch measurements are converted from millimetres). --Clawed 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Yes, the chart does say "Mean".  Atom 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I take it all back, as word on the street is Germans were the only ones who measured, which makes sense, as the EU specs seem larger than the avg cited here —Hey, Wiki.
I have noticed that when you cite Caucasin or White based data, it comes first in the findings and is the biggest or best. I agree with all the comments above and below that the data listed is erroneous and flawed.  I noticed that your opening clip shows that the White penis on average is larger than the Black penis. You did not highlight the data on the second survey that showed the Black man's penis on average was larger. When you showed in another study that the Black man's penis was larger, you still placed the Black man's stats second and buried it in minutia behind the White man's stats. I also read this bit about Blacks coming from hot regions and their penises had to always be extended so they could cool off. Hey buddy, do you see the African animals, horses, gorillas, giraffes, etc walking around the jungle floor with long extended penises venting off heat? I sense a lot of White Supremacy in subtle ways in your findings. The White man is the best, has the biggest penis of all races, and its so knarly, it is even retractable. One day you are going to find Blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Asians writing these articles and being the so called expert and I bet the findings will surely not reflect the trash I am reading here today. I was interested a little in the beginning but then everything went right into a racial issue. These studies that you have listed are quite laughable, literally, and for sure!!!!—4.131.159.234 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size by Race 

message: I have marked this section as disputed, as it's wording suggests that Micropenis is a syndrome rampant in Israeli populations, when the cited study was conducted with primarily Jewish control subjects, with no comparison to other races. There is nothing in the cited article to suggest that the syndrome is more prevalant in Israelis than in other races. A re-phrasing of the section would be appropriate.
::rant on - I am of the opinion, that Americans(of which I belong), and Western Europeans, even non-racist ones tend to clump Asians into one category.  It is only a small percentage of the population that realizes, or makes a distinction between different Asians.  Many Americans are surprised when someone from India is described as Asian.  Whereas Japanese and Koreans fit into the same category, as do Phillipinos, Chinese, Tibetians, and Malaysians.  For most Americans, they think of the world population of Asians to be basically similar to the percentage of asians in the U.S. population -- as a small minority, when, in fact, Asians (used in the broadest sense) are the large majority of the world population.  They don't realize that Koreans and Japanese have a long history of difficulty (animosity?) that precedes the founding of the United States by a thousand years.  rant off
::If we can gather more specific scientific data regarding Micropenis, we could put it in here.  In the mean time I will try and see how it could be reworded to be more neutral. Atom 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Micropenis

message: I've heard this suggested before, and it seems possible, that porn may contribute misconceptions and self doubts relating to penile size since (not suprisingly) most porn stars have larger then average penis sizes. No specific reference but I'm sure someone could find one Nil Einne 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why that's relevant.  We're talking about men with size insecurity, not men as a whole.  Besides, in Europe, North America, Japan and Thailand, which is where I understand this is mainly an issue, I'd venture that almost all men have had some porn exposure.  I don't see whether porn focuses on men to be a relevant issue. Ace of Sevens 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Most men don't watch porn?  Where'd you get that statistic?  Porn is a huge industry (no pun intended), so quite a lot of people must be consuming it. LWizard @ 23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured someone would have to argue.  I think the person who said that men watching men in porn affected their perceptions of penis size has the obligation of statistics.  Yes, online erotica and pornography is a big industry, but even so, most people do not see much porn.  Alot of these studies were done before the Internet and online porn, and has shown men have been unreliable at estimating their penis size as compared to others.  Atom 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also I think it's fair to point out that at least some of the porn' industry's success stems from their customers being prepared to shell out large amounts of money to the point of porn being on a per page or per minute basis vastly over-valued versus other media genres.  Plus it lends itself to consumer frenzy.  Porn makes for a need for more porn. 68.48.160.243 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn 

message: There appears to be an error in one of the quoted measurements. I quote:
A 2005 Study, "Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction." The purpose of this work was to determine penile size in adult normal (group one, 271) and impotent (group two, 109). In group one mean midshaft circumference was 89.8±14 cm, mean flaccid length was mean 9.3±19 cm, and mean stretched length was 13.5±23 cm. In group two, mean flaccid length was 7.7±13 cm, and mean stretched length was 11.6±14 cm.[23]
The 89.8cm figure cannot be right (it's nearly a metre!) 81.178.216.51 16 August 2006 
I checked the original citation and fixed the error.  The error seems to have occurred when an editor changed the reference cited in cm to mm, and then it was changed back from mm to cm, incorrectly.  Probably my doing.  Atom 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big mistake 

message: The statement in the second sentence that humans have the largest testicles among the primates simply isn't true. Chimpanzees have larger testicles generally, and this is difference is even greater when considered against body size. I've heard this several places, and the first applicable Google result agreed. I'd change it myself but I'm not sure where to find more legitimate sourcing. --Jammoe 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and removed the claim. LWizard @ 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testicles 

message: I'm rounding several data values given in the article because of false precision issues. When presenting scientific data, the number of digits displayed implies something about the precision of your data. For instance:
"A study published in the September 1996 Journal of Urology concluded that average erect length was 12.9 cm (5.03 in)". Checking the cite confirms that the study reported a figure of 12.9cm. This implies a precision of around 0.05cm in that data - i.e. about 0.02in. It is therefore not appropriate to list the conversion as '5.03in', which implies a precision of 0.005in or better.
"A study by a Brazilian urologist found an average of 14.6 cm (5.75 in)" - in the absence of a cite, I'm going to assume the findings were reported in cm, in which case the same consideration as above applies.
"A study conducted by LifeStyles Condoms during 2001 Spring Break in Cancún, Mexico found an average of 14.928 cm (5.877 in) with a standard deviation of 2.096 cm (0.825 in)." 
According to the linked page, this result was calculated from 300 subjects. Combined with the standard deviation info, that says that the expected error in that average is about (SD/sqrt(n)) = 2.096cm/sqrt(300) = 0.12cm. Given that sort of error, the last two digits given above are not meaningful - yes, Ansell's own writeup is pretty sloppy. 
Similarly, the standard-deviation values need to be rounded to a more sensible precision. --Calair 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False precision 

message: Does your penis size get affected by what type of food you eat?
FOr example, if bananas increase it, I'll be eating a hell of a lot of them. 
~ Questioner
Sure, diet influences body growth including your penis. Not in the matter that you can eat a bunch of a certain food and expect to increase your penis size. Just a healthy well balanced diet to reach you full growth potential (assuming your growing years aren't over yet).  
Hormone levels probably have an effect, so you need to have enough zinc, vitamin d (from sunshine and/or food), etc... to manufacture testosterone. You need ideal amounts, too much of one nutrient can disturb the balance of other nutrients possibly causing the opposite of the intended effect. So for instance, you might want to eat some sprouted pumpkin seeds to correct a zinc deficiency, but eating tons of them would do no better and may actually be counterproductive. Avoiding toxins in food and your environment may also have an effect.
Your potential size is predetermined by genetics and the environment in the womb (e.g. testosterone exposure during gestation). There have been studies showing chemicals/contaminates/pollutants cause smaller penis size and less fertitility in animals. Here's one example of those studies -> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/gallery/alligators.html I've seen several other similar studies on various animals, which would lead me to assume it applies to humans as well. Although nothing has been proven (on humans specifically). So eating better and avoiding toxins will most likely have an effect (on penis size), albeit an increasing smaller effect the the older you are. With the most effect if started at gestation (by you mother eating well and avoiding contaminates) and no effect if past adolescence (since your penis is already done growing). Obviously taking care of yourself (regardless of age) will have other benefits (even it has neglible to zero effect on penis size). So it doesn't hurt to try.
Wits 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food affect size? 

message: Two years later and no one has bothered to write this up. I'm hardly an expert, but I've seen the evolutionary arguments presneted many times. That "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." gives me pause from just jumping in and adding it: I don't have good references to back me up.  --Elijah 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there are alot of good argument/theories as to why. I would think it would be reasonable to source that information, but with caution as to the wording. I found another article dealing with the biological reasons for human penis morphology at http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep021223.html --Wits 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Reasons Redux 

message: user:CasperEACClemence, you removed the chart that shows frequenct versue size, and I took a good look at it, and it seems like a useful chart.  I'm wondering what your objections are about it?  I will try to find the source for that information to check the accuracy/validity of what is shown versus the reference.  Atom 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The frequency versus size should be a bar chart. Joining the data up with a wiggly line like that is not normally done. The percentile chart is fine though.WolfKeeper 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See "Article too sympathetic" above for the raw data.WolfKeeper 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  frequency chart 

message: Reviewed This version
This article is classified under "Articles with unsourced statements" and is not therefore eligable for GA. 
*Multiple unsupported assertations in article. 
*A section on the fictional TV show "Sex in the City" is more suited to "References to penis size in popular culture" than a factual piece of the article.
*Long list in "Race and penis size" should be converted to prose.
*Order of the sections does not seem to follow any logical pattern.
Otherwise, the text of the article is reasonably well-written. TimVickers 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: Is it possible to add a section about penis diameter, and what's normal and what's large in diameter?
thanks
There is a section on circumference (distance around).  That is conventionally how "width" is measured with the penis.  Atom 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis Diameter 

message: It seems that the Ansell study should not be classfied as "Academic/Scientific."   The main reason being it cannot be classed as rigorous science being that does not fully describe it’s methods (how are they measuring penis length?  Who are these “qualified medical staff” doing measuring?  How did they recruit participants (did they just randomly approach people and ask if they wanted their penis measured?)).  Moreover, a common conception of a scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed journal - unlike the Ansell study.  For these reasons, I believe the  study should be moved to a separate section, say, "Other studies."  Any takers?  Lifeliver4 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientic status of Ansell study 

message: I recently added some info on other areas of vaginal response. There are really several names for possible areas of deeper stimulation (past g-spot). I'm going to talk about the area I called the "cul-de-sac" in the latest edit.
I've heard it called the A-spot, AFE-zone, epicentre, and cul-de-sac. With the first 3 names usually referring to the anterior fornix, and the latter to the posterior fornix (as far as I can interpret).  
The cervix, posterior fornix, anterior fornix, and cul-de-sac are all within close proximity of eachother. So bumping the cervix for instance could indirectly stimulate the cul-de-sac, etc... So there can be some confusion as to what is being stimulated and thus what it should be called. 
Supposedly this area is the female equivalent of the prostate. Possibly the same area being indirectly stimulated from different sides. So what should this area be called? I used "cul-de-sac" in the article, but this would be stimulation from one side whilst the other top side is more commonly referred to as the A-spot or AFE-zone. I'm leaning towards epicentre as I have heard it mentioned for both areas (although usually referring to anterior) or uteral (since it's in the area of uterus). Anyone found anything definite on this?
Some links that might help for those researching -> http://www.heretical.com/miscella/g-spots.html http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1596#F3
And of course the links on the article page regarding the cervix and cul-de-sac.
:: Perhaps it should be left as "cul-de-sac" since I interpret this (from studies/articles) as the area being stimulated indirectly from different sides or indirectly by cervix. Thought I would bring up the terminology to see if anyone knew more definately. Wits 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, this info concerning the cul-de-sac contradicts the info starting the section on vaginal stimulation. Since this area is stimulated indirectly (not by actual contact) it wouldn't be affected by swipping the inner vagina with a q-tip or even a scapel. There would need to be more pressure (such as by a thrusting penis). Evidence does point towards the clitoris/vulva being the the most important areas to bring most women off, but also that a significant minority are equally or better served by deep vaginal stimulation. Wits 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea what you're talking about.CerealBabyMilk 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources I've cited on deeper vaginal stimulation use different terminology. So bear with my uncertainty on the matter. That's why I brought it up for discussion here. Please explain If you know better. Wits 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no consensus has been reached, I added the other terms to the cul-de-sac section. AKA "A-Spot, AFE-Zone, AFE, T-Spot, or epicentre". So never mind. Wits 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the correct name for the inner most area of vaginal stimulation ('''never mind''')? 

message: During the 1970s, I had sex to orgasm with about 1,000 different males of all races at the gay bathhouses of San Francisco.  I can state categorically from personal experience that there definitely is a difference in the erect penis size of various races. Keraunos Using rough ballpark estimates, I would say the average size when erect of the Caucasian and Hispanic penis is about six inches, of the Black African penis about seven inches, and of the East Asian penis about five inches. Keraunos 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penis Size of Different Races

message: The graphs in this article reference the LifeStyles study, and the references point to a summary of the study's results. Does anyone have a source reference for the data used to draw the graphs? -- The Anome 11:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LifeStyles data 

message: The continual statement from experts and others male and female, the statement that size is inconsequential where the female is concerned seems to me to exemplify a society where everything has become surreal, euphemized, even political. There are are a number of positions possible during sex, positions very pleasurable to women (at least those with whom I've had sex), positions unattainable with small (short, that is) penises. Unless one must say that women don't enjoy varied positions (and the play related during sex), "size does't matter" statements are nonsense.   
-    
- It's difficult for me, for one, so accept statements by supposed experts - professional and otherwise - who knowledge is so obviously flawed. I note that one study published recently on the internet has it that college women eighteen to twenty-five years of age stated that size - especially length - didn't matter. I should think the implications of both their age and environment would make this kind of study suspect, too.    
-    
- It may very well be that human sexuality is an example of the kind of science we get nowadays. I notice similarly illogical and invalid "studies" everywhere these day, and they are beginning to do a great deal of harm. Interested in religious and political mendacity where sex and gender are concerned since high school, I find that the subject has definable parallels everywhere in daily affairs. Homo Sapiens - "Thinking Man" - it seems, would far rather know what he wants to know than what is the truth.   user:Judo Knight 10:52, 27 November 2006
Perhaps it is the case that for the most part "size doesn't matter"??  You seem to doubt this for some reason.  I'm sure that what they are saying is that for women, 90% of men under the bell curve (5-7" in length) that the length is sufficient to get the job done, and that width (not length) and the personality and desire to please of the man is more important than length for a large majority of the people.  Atom 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size Doesn't matter ?? 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6161691.stm 
Jato57 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research on penis size/condom failure in India 

message: Just curious. I've heard there was a stereotype that Greeks had big penises. 204.52.215.107 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the Greeks I know. :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Penis Size