Talk:Human penis size

Average penis size and race

Does average penis size really vary between the races? Or is that just a myth? If it's true, it should be mentioned in the article. Voortle (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick search reveals this page http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=366192 which quotes from a previous version of the main article. What happened to the quoted section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.49.25 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Related medical journals have found no correlation between race and penis size. For example, in 2006, the British Journal of Urology found no differences in penis size between races. http://www.livescience.com/health/070601_penis_myths.html The only thing that states differences are self reported surveys, unscientific surveys, and unscientific research. For example, in the google link you posted above, some of the results are even stated to be highly flawed or based on self selection including internet polls. Furthermore, the results even contradict each other. Obviously, that is not reliable and you can see why it would not meet Wikipedia's standards.

TheLou75 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then regardless, that should be mentioned as well. I get the impression that this is considered an "impolite" topic to bring up, and yet it is really a very influential set of myths about race. Ideas about penis size are very common, in places as far afield as China. Passing over it in silence will not make it go away. And the link that you posted did not provide numbers. Scanning Google Scholar I've found various studies that were contradictory.

A quick scan on PubMed brought up some results that argue that there are differences of some kind, at least. Here and Here, plus one from Google Scholar Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.40.143 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How does penis size of newborns even matter since its prior to puberty? Even then the first source says that differences existed until 5 years of age and then no differences. The last source seems to be from an afrocentric site too so I wouldn't even consider it.And of course, like you said, research is contradictory. If thats the case then we have to wait until a definitive study that is widely accepted is done before concluding what correct or incorrect. GreenWave254 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing on this topic, I've tagged to following with an "unreliable source" tag:

Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific relation between penis size and race.

Sources:

Adams, Michael V (1996). The multicultural imagination: race, color, and the unconscious. London: Routledge. p. 164. ISBN 041513837X.

"Penis Myths Debunked". LiveScience. June 1, 2007.

I am not disputing what the sentence says, but I am disputing the sources. The first is an identity politics/cultural studies book and the second is some random "science" website. Neither rises to the level of reliable source for what is basically a biomedical question. References should be to medical textbooks and journals. The subject probably deserves more than one sentence, considering the amount of popular beliefs of the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed it all together since biomedical articles shouldn't be making speculation but instead be based on conclusive reliable study that is widely accepted by the medical and scientific study. Once such a study is completed, it can be included. Otherwise, content in support or against it shouldn't be included as it would be unencyclopedic. TheLou75 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Further research is called for, but at a glance, the ScienceLive info is likely to have relied not on the UG journal they cite, but on the description of it in the singled-out 1st entry of the penis-size bibilography of Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. We should not rely on either of them, but Kinsey is far more reliable than ScienceLive, KIRSGR's endorsement of journal's review article is compelling, and perhaps most to the point, KIRSGR, being a scholarly source, has given us a specific citation within the journal, rather than just joking about what the title means, as ScienceLive did at one point in mentioning it. So we can, with some effort, go read the journal article -- probably, worst case, in a med school library.
  --Jerzy•t 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  

The assertion that mean penis size does not vary between racial groups is highly dubious. A quick glance through the literature suggests quite the opposite; indeed, sub-Saharan Africans possess the largest penises on average, followed by Caucasians, followed by East Asians. This is a topic that many individuals are curious about and it oughtn't to be swept aside for ideological reasons. --Mr. Deltoid (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, no medical journal or science journal has found any correlation. The only studies done were pre 1950 and were heavily influenced by eugenics as well as other racial research (ie trying to prove that African Americans were not human) which has since proven to be false and is not accepted academically or by the medical community. For example, much of the Kinsey studies have been rejected by the scientific community for using flawed testing procedures. And a lot of this had to do with a racial bias agenda back then. Karot24g (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there must have been studies by the World Health Organization. During the height of the Rushton IQ/penis size debate the Toronto Globe & Mail quietly reported that 40 mm condoms were distributed in Asia, 55 mm in Europe, and 70 mm in Africa. This was pre-internet at the Globe & Mail, so I can't find the source. This is probably not fine grained enough. I expect size varies within these regions by ethnic group. The backwards politically correct reasoning that we all should be the same so we are all the same and if you say different you are a racist is thankfully dead. Incidentallly, I noticed in my misspent youth that the mons and vagina of females vary markedly by race as well, and erm, I had a statistically significant sample. Is it even likely that a typical Thai would be built like a Zulu? Testoterone levels, age of onset of puberty, physique, and abilities vary greatly between races - despite the wishes of Stephen Jay Gould (who was raised in a Marxist Houshold). 173.178.16.2 (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Rushton is a supporter of eugenics and argued that brain size of blacks was smaller than whites. He made some other absurd claims as well. Furthermore, Rushton never had statisically valid evidence to back up his claims. No one accepts Rushton as fact. In fact, Rushton's claims have been rejected by the scientific community. As for the Toronto Globe & Mail, a journalist's claims are never considered a valid reference, especially in the context of a science/medical entry. I have seen too much inaccurate reporting in newspaper articles as of late. Karot24g (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its rather absurd to categorize all Caucasians, all Asians, all Africans, and all Hispanics into categories as there are huge difference within each category. A Russian is not going to look the same as a Greek. Likewise a Chinese man is not going to look the same as a Tibetan. Likewise, an African from Liberia is not going to look the same as an African from South Africa. Likewise, an African is not going to look the same as a 5th generation African American. Any study that groups each into a category is going to be highly dubious unless they took 1,000 people from each region. A regional study would probably be the only valid study and there has been no regional study which uses a scientiically valid sample size. It's things like this that amaze me as this seems like common sense. Mohom987 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this conflicting piece on the internet although it is by country, not race, It seems to play heavily. File:C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Bo\pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxk21 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Image - Possible NPOV Violation

By showing only circumcised penises i believe this article constitutes a violation of the NPOV policy by suggesting that circumcised penises are normal. For the vast majority of the world they are't, and in fact statistically for English speaking countries they are not (anymore). Images of both should be shown, maybe even find some statistics that show whether or not there is a difference in average length between "cut" and "uncut" 173.18.214.8 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a bit stretching it. I'll restore the pic until a consensus is reached. JerseyShore223 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the penis is uncircumcised until molested by lunatics. 86.44.152.106 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture was there to illustrate the variation in human penis size, and thats what the article is about. If the "owners" of these penises are circumcised or not is negligible. This has nothing to do with NPOV, nothing is claimed here. And last but not least: why would there be a difference in average length between "cut" and "uncut"?? If you count the foreskin, than yes, the uncut will be longer. But isn't that trivial?--Lamilli (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the image does not belong here at all. The article isn't about "variations in penis size". If it was, it would be the perfect image. The article deals with human penis size in general, including subjects such as enlargement, perception, condom use, measuring, development over age etc. I think the article is better without it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does have a Variance in penis size section, and a well made image comparing sizes and showing clinical methods of measurement would be useful, but the image in question, a collage with varying perspectives, is not beneficial to the article. -- 110.49.241.13 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1001/archpedi.1943.02010160019003 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gay men reporting larger (longer) penis size

Considering the fitness standards for beauty in gay culture push a much lower body fat percentage (see Northeastern University's health study http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2010/06/ConronHealthDisparities.html) and that men lose some of their penile length - or at least have it hidden - by the pad of pubic fat at the base of the penis, it shouldn't be surprising to see gay men reporting greater length.

If you're leaner, you're longer. 69.47.134.171 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture Removal

Why was the main picture removed? Every Wikipedia page should have a main picture of the subject that is under discussion. Possibly a large conglomerate of various penis pictures should be in order to cover different demographics, sizes, and shapes. This would vividly illustrate the topic at hand and allow viewers from many different nations to gain new visual perspectives.

Where's the stuff on race?

I simply can't believe that race is not mentioned in this article. I don't personally know for a fact whether or not race makes a difference, but obviously that's what many (if not a majority) of people come here hoping to find out. Whether it's a factor or not, this article needs to address it. 98.82.196.213 (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Studies on the subject may be unreliable or conrtadictory, but people certainly have a lot of ideas about how penis size relates to race. Even if studies cannot be found at least the myths should be discussed somewhat. 206.248.130.48 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such needs to be held to the same standards. You won't see any respectable encyclopedia discussing myths, only facts should be discussed. You said it yourself, the studies are unreliable and contradictory, so why would they be included? Wikipedia states that only reliable information should be included. Karot24g (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you would. Encyclopedia are supposed to discuss myths that are important and widely held.--178.167.200.101 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "studies are conflicting", as per http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm. LiteralKa (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo

I don't know how to correct a typo on a semi-protected article, so I'll just post it here and hope that someone with administrative rights can correct it.

Under Variance in penis size > Environmental influence on penis size, the sentence

Both Polychlorinated biphenylPCBs and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size.

should be

Both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size. --128.59.46.218 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Or this:

Both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) have been associated with smaller penis size.

Rural penises

According to a study published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine males from the countryside have larger penises than urban males.[1] __meco (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference in mean sizes was .4 cm which translates to 0.157480315 inches. I wouldn't call that significant. Not to mention the study was in Bulgeria. Gateway393 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Put hyperlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-Foot-Genital_Syndrome where missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe33 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to my edit

"Deleted unsuitable reference and substituted citation required. 'Trash' reference was not from medical or other research but rather a 2nd hand quote in a politically-charged book"

Suitable references to penis size and race are required. I'm surprised that there aren't ten proper references, since many actual studies have been done.

The reference I deleted was the most inappropriate that I've ever seen, not only in that it's a highly controversial examination of psychology and politics, but the actual quote was second-hand hearsay from an author named Fanon who, to quote from the deleted reference, "is a revolutionary who applies Freudian, Adlerian and Jungian analysis, Sartrian existentialism, and Marxist ideology to criticize colonialism, imperialism, and racism." Read for yourself: [2] ~~Markus451

Edit request from 218.208.232.237, 5 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

218.208.232.237 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Extreme Bias...

I am guessing it is because it would be considered racist but there is a difference in average size amongst races. There has been numerous studies that contradict the statements of article. The authors simply decided to ignore the other research to promote the concept of human equality... Based on my observations of the research of race and size, there is virtually equal range in between each race however the average and median differ significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.182 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Measued from where to where?

Surely the article should state where the measurements were taken from. Were they from the torso to the tip or from the front of scrotum to the tip, or some other measurement?--178.167.200.101 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Flaccid or erect?

In regards to Human_penis_size#Studies_on_penis_size, the 'other source' gives stats for soft and erect. The averages given to start off this section only contain one set of statistics though. Is it fair to assume these are erect values or could they possibly be flaccid ones? I'm not sure what to think, I'm just going by how it says 1.54 diameter whereas the pair gave 1.5 while erect, so it would be more similar that way and explain the higher sizes. DB (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)