Talk:Human penis size/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Why a picture of 2 circumsized penii?

Why show a pic of s 2 "unnatural" ones, wouldn't it make more sense to show a normal and a deformed one?

J/k about deformed part :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.107.151 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's awfully strange, being that there are two penises, and both are circumcised. Especially considering the fact that 70-75% of the worlds men are not circumcised.--Studiodan (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this should really be changed. This is an article about penis size, not circumcision. They should be pictures of the natural organ. Hypochristy (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since about 1/3rd of penes are circumcised, worldwide, it makes sense to include images of both circumcised and uncircumcised kinds. Jakew (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is probably not represeting a world view. In the U.S. and England, about 70% of all men are circumsized, hence the (incorrect) assumption that circumsized is normal. Both circumsized and uncircumsized penii are normal. One is altered and one is not altered. I agree that images of both should be in the article, as there are larger numbers of both types around. Atom (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually in England, almost no one is circumcized. Circumcision is very rare there and is not paid for like it is in the US. GreenWave254 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not too many circumsized people in the UK 86.47.6.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

4 in is not 8.5 cm

In the section "Penis size and female genital response", it's written that 4 in equal 8.5 cm. This is simply false, as 1 in = 2.54 cm, and 4 * 2.54 = 10.16 cm. Interestingly, the article from which the information is gotten, has also made the same mistake, but that does not change math and measurement conventions. I would have fixed the mistake myself if I could edit the article, but I can't. --90.154.212.42 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that awful conversion too, but seeing as 4 inchs and 10cm are mentioned a few paragraphs above, I guess that they were trying to go for 4 inches and maths completely failed them. Regretably I cant change it either, but probably needs sorting out since it looks a bit ridiculous. JimBrownish (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Valid source for LifeStyle data needed!

LifeStyle data "looks" nice and "valid", but link to one-page summary of findings and MrAverage.com aren't creditable sources! More creditable source for this data is needed. I don't see point for publishing diagrams with not-creditable data as illustrations for the article. If there's no creditable source, the diagrams should be deleted. es_uomikim (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I question the validity of the lifestyle data. The men that volunteered to have their sex measured are certainly the ones most proud of their penis size. The sample is then obviously biased upwards.

Would LifeStyles even be considered an acadmeic source? GreenWave254 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

typo

In this bit:

"Most men concerned about their penis size and seeking surgical treatment for enlarging penis, overestimates"

overestimates should be overestimate

Fixed TheLou75 (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Micropenis Section

The last line:

A news post on New Scientist dated December 6, 2004 reads "A new surgical procedure has allowed men with abnormally short penises to enjoy a full sex life and urinate standing up, some for the first time. Tiny "micro-penises" have been enlarged to normal size without losing any erogenous sensation, say UK doctors."[54]

Is extremely un-encyclopedic. In fact, the info shouldn't even be presented as a quote, it should be a prose summary of the article, citing the source. Can someone please read the source and you know actually write a sentence or two on what the new surgical procedure is, instead of just quoting the first line of the article. I would fix this myself but the page is protected.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the Historical Perceptions Section

While I have no problems having the "The Straight Dope" as a source and citing it in the article, I do have problems with how it's the sole source presented in terms of the ancient Greek view on penis size. The source itself is hardly from a reliable author who is neither an expert nor a scholar on the subject. In fact if you actually read the article, it's explicitly stated that it's the authors own liberal interpretation of Kenneth Dover's Greek Homosexuality. This article is presenting the Straight Dope as if it's an academically respected journal on the subject. It's hardly more than a theory by someone not studied in the subject and quoting an academic work that doesn't even primarily deal with the subject of penis size.

It ends with:

You're thinking: How times have changed. Ain't arguing. Of course, we do have to take into account a contributing factor: artists' models were nude, and their studios lacked central heat.

For crying out loud.

This section needs to be expanded with real, actual, academic sources. Not popular culture mush.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the amount of pop culture in here is really putting a bad spin on the article. GreenWave254 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture

It must go now. It is misleading and contributes to spreading myths about race and penis size. I just spent the past half hour trying to take pictures of my own penis because I know it isn't small and it would be better to replace the top picture, but I can't get it at a good angle because it's very, very hard to keep the blood flow in an 8 inch erect penis sustained without some very good pornography (for me, only the highest quality BBW porn actually gives me a raging erection) and getting it at a good angle without someone to take the picture for me is damned near impossible whilst trying to maintain a full erection because porn doesn't turn me on that much anymore, only real women do.--Whyisthisnotme (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One, get a life. Two, I wish you weren't a liar. --RyanTee82 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-sign with RyanTee82. And the picture isn't not about linking race and penis size, because what is, is. This picture has been discussed already. Look at the above discussions. Unreasonable (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL "I just spent the past half hour trying to take pictures of my own penis because I know it isn't small and it would be better to replace the top picture".

The lower left photo shows what appears to be an extremely long and thick penis (I'm estimating two or more standard deviations above the mean length and mean circumference, based on data supplied elsewhere in this article). A more representative photo would be more appropriate. Wpcraig (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)WPCraig

Origin of the term "hung"?

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Anyone know the story behind it? I'm not insinuating I know -- I'm asking. There has to be an origin.. --RyanTee82 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always figured it's because the penis notably hangs down from the body. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

this should go into the data section: Study of 3,300 Italian Men found 5inch penis average.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223678?dopt=Abstract

This is a link to an Italian Study of about 3,300 italian men. The study basically found that stretched lenght was measured on average to about 5 inches. The idea with the stretching being that it is very accurate with erect penis length(I am not sure about that but thats what the research article stated..and I looked up other penis studies and found many that state there is a strong correlation between penis stretched length and erect length.

So basically this cuts down on the stupid stereotype that Italians are hung. Surag198 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)10/16/09

So make one more edit (i.e. become autoconfirmed) and then add it yourself. Just make sure you can do it in a neutral way. That being said, I think the more interesting aspect of that study was the correlation with weight and height. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The study WAS cited by Wylie and Erdley in their review. And it was not on erect size but flaccid and stretched. I moved it to the different part of the article. (es_uomikim (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Controversial BBC Report on Indian Penis length-please mention this and the controversy!!!!

I found this BBC report, that was written in 2006 very controversial and in a way racist.

First off, the report was factually very inaccurate. It was also exceedingly limited in scope and refused to discuss other nationalities that faced simliar problems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm

First off: Why should this be of relevance? To many Indians, this is one of the first articles that comes up or is discussed. just typing Indian men and penis size on google will result in thousands, yes thousands of articles, forum topics denigrating and pointing out that Indians must have smaller penis' than others because of this article. It is obviously true that the Internet is no place for facts let alone a forum, but when you have so many forums making this claim based off one article it can be very depressing.

As a result, some facts need to be straightened out. The BBC article claims that slippage(due to too big condoms) was the main concern for Indians and the study. The reality is that the actual study found that condom tearing was the bigger issue. In fact, this is a common issue for all users of condoms. Condom failures were mainly due to condom tearing. not slippage as the BBC article would have you believe.

In addition, it goes on to assert based of this flawed study that Indians have small penis' quoting others as stating- its the motion of the ocean...and so forth.

Finally, and here is the main point: A similar study in germany (http://www.4-men.org/germanpenis.html) Would indicate that this is not isolated to Indians. Another study by LifeStyle conducted on caucasian men in Cancun(vacationing) found very similar results that white males did not match the international condom sizes.

I would greatly appreciate if two things were done. One, on this article itself a separate paragraph title is dedicated to Penis Size Controversy and BBC report and a separate article could be created(how is it done? can i do it?) that denotes what I have said.

Thanks.

Removal of above study

I restored the content relating to the above discussed Italian study, which was removed earlier today without a reason given. As far as I can see, this study is definitely worth mentioning. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved study to "Flaccid size" part, because it is on flaccid size... Btw see comments above and summaries of editions. (es_uomikim (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

An Italian study of about 3,300 Italian men concluded that stretched length was measured on average to about 5 inches. In addition, a correlation between weight and height and penis length was also found. However this was done only on 500 men with a small correlation value. -stop deleting this article. it is a very useful article. if you have problems with it please inform and mention why. dont just remove articles for no reason. thanks. I restored the article Surag198 (talk)

how about the controversial BBC study on Indian Penis length? what about that? How do I post it up?

NB: The article states that there is "a small correlation value" between height, weight and penis length in the Italian study. However, the abstract of the study that is referenced states that a high correlation was found. "We also observed that the penile dimensions are highly correlated with height and weight." See here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223678?dopt=Abstract

Of course, this is not necessarily the case - the authors of the article might claim a greater correlation than is statistically warranted by even their own study. But if this is so the case for that would have to be given or rather another article or statement would have to be cited that disputed the abstract.

Also, please note, I say "disputed the abstract", not the actual results of the study, because it is unfortunate but common practice in medical abstracts to overplay the significance of the study's findings. This is particularly common in psychiatry. Sometimes, the results as per abstract are repeated verbatim and become common consensus even though a careful reading of the study by someone trained to assess statistics will dispute the findings spun out in the abstract. It's sleazy stuff indeed, and in the case of psychiatric studies, for instance, the hidden hand of the pharmaceutical companies can often be felt pulling the strings.

((For instance, and hypothetically, an article that claims against antidepressants having a statistically negative effect on bipolar disorder in its abstract, when its own statistical evidence for this is pretty weak, might have a reasonable chance of passing peer review without an abstract edit being requested, such is the allure of appeasing the SSRI/SNRI manufacturers that sponsor so many conferences, journals, and indeed research studies in the field.))

However, and anyway, by referencing the abstract, the article author seems obliged by the good standards we uphold on wiki (as opposed to those of many medical journals,) to state that the study claimed a high correlation, unless another article disputing this can be offered, or a quote from the full published article can be found wherein the authors of the study qualify their initial claim as to their findings.

By the way, is there a slight tendency in this article as a whole to underplay any data that might lead men to question themselves?

Flaccid Length

The "shrinkage" referred to is caused mostly by the dartos muscle within the fascia of the penis and scrotum. Only the elevation of the testicles is caused by the cremaster muscle. Suggest correcting this - where is the citation for this section anyway? Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Greek's depicted them smaller

Ok, I can't find a source to back this up, but I learned in my class that Greeks are depicted with smaller penises and barbarians with larger ones because this symbolized self-control vs lack of self-control. The Greeks would shun a man with an erection, because this meant he wasn't in control of himself - in other words, he wasn't civilized. Barbarians are wild and uncouth, so they were mockingly symbolized with large penises. So, it was only natural to depict themselves with small penises, as this was a valued ideal.

If someone could find a good source to back this claim up, it might be worth putting in here.

Penis size changes

In one of the sections it suggests that penis size changes with frequency of sexual activity, that can't possibly be true. I'd like that edited. SamR

Average penis size by country?

Is there any data on this?

None that includes several countries that is reliable enough to be included; most are just polls and studies with very small sample sizes. The only reliable study done done for a country was for India through a condom study involving thousands of men. TheLou75 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

citation needed

Self-reported measurements tend to be unreliable because men often want to report a larger penis size.[citation needed]

The [citation needed] part is hilarious ;-) --84.143.76.84 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Helpful Citation Stuff

Here's a link to the PDF for citation number 28, I think it is helpful to have it accessible online. <http://dfred.bol.ucla.edu/FrederickPeplauLever-2008-IJSH-BarbieMystique.pdf>

And the link to citation 27 doesn't work. It comes up as a "not found" page. <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2005/05/27/hscout525946.html> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.102.225 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bible

This section, consisting then of the two following (and lightly reformatted) contribs, was removed from April 5 thru May 19, presumably as reckless collateral damage in a talk-page edit war. ^{(It's a good example of one reason why removals of talk contribs, except for the most obvious forms of vandalism (or eventually for archiving) are a lousy idea.)}--Jerzy•t 12:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a Bible verse that mentions penis size (!) Stonemason89 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? Atom (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding an external link

Hi,

There is a reliable site (I think) which states only scientific papers and draws a correct picture of what human penis sizes are.

http://www.penismeasure.org

By the way it seems that the diagram depicted here has no Gaussian shape this seems not true. As I read from the papers from the site (penismeasure.org) the average sizes indicated here are correct but the SD is much larger (that is, the diagram should look more wide).

That website is a scam run by a single person charges $1.00 per minute to find out how your penis size measures up. I would not put it up. Greenstripes884 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Most sources on Google will say 6 inches is average, not 5

Someone keeps removing my question from the discussion page. Basically I'm asking why this article uses sources that say 5 inches is average when the majority of sources on Google say 6 is the average? Would 5-6 inches not be more logical as an average. Also, a person with a 7 inch penis would use a regular sized condom. 86.46.81.235 (talk)

As the article indicates, there is a number of factors that can be measured, and at different times. At birth versus later in life, flaccid versus erect, and girth as well as length. Everyone seems to focus on only erect penis length. In this article, there currently seem to be five different sources and citations for penis length. Four of them are studies, with all of the limitations that a study has (sample size, sampling method, etc) and one is a review of 12 studies.[[1]] "By drawing together the results of 12 studies that measured the penises of 11,531 men, they discovered that average erect penises ranged from 14-16cms (5.5 to 6.2 inches) in length and 12-13cm (4.7 to 5.1 inches) in girth." So, doesn't this source, given in this article, already say pretty much what you are asking for? BTW< also of interest in that article: "...reported that 90 per cent of women prefer a wide penis to a long one." "...85 per cent of women were satisfied with their partner's penile size, but only 55 per cent of men were satisfied." and "Women are much more interested in a man's personality and looks than the size of his penis..."

Regarding the proper sized condom for a 7 inch penis. "Condoms are made in different lengths and widths, and different manufacturers produce varying sizes. There is no standard length for condoms, though those made from natural rubber will in addition always stretch if necessary to fit the length of the man's erect penis."[[2]] And keep in mind that penis girth is also a factor in condom choice. Atom (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Disgraceful misrepresentation

Meta-discussion

The contentious discussion in this section has included off-topic material that is at best a distraction from the purpose stated in the talk-page box at the top, which is to improve the content of the accompanying article. With several contributions to the discussion, that in various degrees infringed the core purpose of Wikipedia:No personal attacks -- "Comment on content, not on the contributor" -- i have struck portions thru, not to conceal or be rid of that content but to make it easy either to skip over it, or to inspect it in order to review my judgments about portions better struck thru as both irrelevant and disruptive, as readers prefer.
--Jerzy•t 12:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

>     I encourage review such as i just mentioned above, and hope for at least one of you colleagues to post in this subsection some indication of whether and how urgently further attention to that is needed; this may permit some readers to focus more confidently on the remaining text of the content discussion itself.
     While i intend to ensure that no more removals of material from the section occur except when archived -- the remedy for bad ideas is not fewer bad ideas, but more good ones -- i'm not here to dictate which parts stay struck thru, or which additional ones get struck thru. I'll enforce WP:3RR on this talk pg, if occasion arises. Otherwise, i commend to you

1. discussion in this subsection in advance of changes in strike-thru status
2. seeking substantial consensus before effecting such changes
3. making consensus more feasible, by judging contribs by those who agree with you by the same standards you apply to those who disagree with you
4. reviewing Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices and applying them so conscientiously when you are stating your own approach to the article that your colleagues (on both sides of each question that arises) are embarrassed into emulating you.

--Jerzy•t 12:18 & 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

>     My mention of 3RR was aimed at re-formatting wars. Anyone deleting material will get the severest level of warning on the 1st offense, and escalating blocks following.
--Jerzy•t 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I took out the strike throughs because for me at least, it makes it hard to read and I have no problem seeing the original text. Panodor988 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion proper

It's been established that there is no link between race and penis size. Yet the photograph at the top of this article clearly suggests that is not the case. Not NPOV in the slightest. Whoever made that picture was a propagandist.--NoMNNOmo (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's assuming that you know what race both men are. GreenWave254 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You can quite clearly see that the bigger one is from a man with some black in him.. Anyway why are there no pictures of a natural penis? by far the majority of penises in this world have foreskins, its only in America and Israel that people have had it cut off. I propose putting a picture with a foreskin up.Gazlink (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it's not a hispanic man or southern european? TheLou75 (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If there was a pictre up of a small asian penis and a large white penis, then people would rightly want the picture changed, and people would say 'oh but he could be black'. There will be no arguments if theyre the same size, as the picture could be misinterpreted to reinforce stereotypes on this touchy issue.. youve just got to make them the same sizeGazlink (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and btw 70% of penises, when asked said they had foreskins, so lets go with consensus too.. not just have the type that we see most often.. in american porn...Gazlink (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

[[3]].. ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazlink (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 April 2010

> The preceding link is to an image whose title is "Human penis flaccid and erect".
--Jerzy•t 12:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, when is someone actually going to edit this? whats the point in talking about it if no-one who can edit it can be bothered to?Gazlink (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

>    The following long contrib has twice been removed (completely, 23 March thru 5 April, with edit summary "rvv" -- meaning "Reverted vandalism" -- and all but the first 'graph, 7 April thru 19 May by a different editor, who summarized "Removed rant portion of response", and also removed without discussion of that removal.
     The contribution was not vandalism. Whether or not it was a rant is irrelevant, and its removal was and would remain contrary to the interest of the appropriate discussion. I now restore it.
--Jerzy•t 12:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

== == I AGREE!!! - The Picture Has Got To Go! == ==
The picture is misleading and not representative if we want to give people an idea of the reality, which I thought was what Wikipedia was all about!? The picture clearly shows a tiny white penis and a huge black penis, and that's simply encouraging the myth about the hung black man to go on, even though it has been proven wrong time and time again. The fact that it is still there, and that it was even put up, proves that there are some people here that really want the myth to live on!
Albert Einstein once said: "It is easier to split the atom than to crack a prejudice". I think there are two reasons why. 1. People working with atoms, tend to be rather intelligent. People in general, are often very stupid. 2. People working with atoms, want to split it. Some people, don't want the myth to die.
The facts: Although there have been surprisingly few actual scientific studies on the subject, it is a known fact that the myth is no more than just a myth.
- The first to complete valid study was actually the German Nazis. In 1942, Dr. Stigler organized a major examine of the sexual organs of the war prisoners from Africa and the Antilles. The result of the studies was that the only significant difference, beside colour, was that the black often had longer and thicker prepuces, which could "give an impression of length and thickness".
- In 1948, Alfred Kinsey completed an extensive study of the sexes called the Kinsey-report. The report did, in spite of its size, not answer the question, and could, on this subject, only conclude that "the sexual habits for blacks and for whites at the same social level are very similar, if not straightforward completely identical".
- Fortunately, same year did La Société d Anthropologie de Paris publish a study on the subject, which in the light of 12 independent researcher'’ results concluded, that "the black man's penis generally is a bit more voluminous when flaccid, but that this difference counterbalances when erect".
- The study that gives the most precise answer to the question is the Definitive Penis Size Survey, 1998. The results showed that it is actually the other way around! The average white penis is: 16,51cm long, black: 15,49cm, Hispanic: 14,98cm and East Asian: 13,97cm.
The cause of the myth is revealed with solid and well documented research as foundation in the book La légende du sexe surdimensionné des noirs by Serge Bilé. One of Bilé’s most essential observation is, that the myth about the black man's over dimensioned sexual organ is inextricably linked with the prejudice about the black man's primitive nature, subjective to their bestial instincts. The prejudice about the black man's apparently indomitable sexual operation and animal-like nature can be traced all the way back to some of our earliest historical sources. In the 5th century, Herodotus wrote that "the African copulates in full public as an animal" and that "his semen isn't white as other men's, but black as his skin". Also the Italian explorer Marco Polo reported, after a longer stop in Zanzibar, on the "big membered men" that they "looked like devils". The myth did fine in Egypt too, where the writing scholarly Al-Abshibi in the 14th century wrote following flattering simplification about the black man's social qualities: "When he starves, he steals. When he is full, he mates". Even an Enlightenment philosopher such as Voltaire participated in the prevalence of the prejudice by alleging that "It is hardly unlikely", he wrote, "that it has happened in the tropics, that apes has seduced local girls".
According to Bilé, the reason for these racist prejudices was no coincidence. They established the image of 'the barbaric Negro'. Cause with the prejudices firmly build into the popular consciousness, the justification of the slavery was an ease. Later on, the myth did also make it possible for the white man to position himself as the Christian saviour, who took care of the poor pagan cannibals, keeping them from doing nothing but breed and eat each other.
It is important when dealing with this myth, to remember the changing of sex- and status symbols. In 2010 is it attractive to be thin and tanned. But in 1710 it was more attractive to be fat and pale. When the myth about the wellhung black man occurred more than 2000 years ago, it was not attractive to have a big penis. A big penis was the equivalent to thinking only about sex, and was therefore a symbol of an uncivilized character. The bigger the penis - the more primitive. An obvious example of this, we can come across if we take a look at ancient Greek art. You will when you look at the statues, whether or not you're a sex addict or just childish, notice that the male genitals are often visible. Here the penis size-contrary to the civilized stage gets very clear. The statues that portray the gods, kings and heroes have the smallest penises. Those that portray the uncivilized, primitive brutes; minotaurs, centaurs and satyrs, have the biggest penises.
It is only a myth, a prejudice, which has gone from negative to positive. I understand why 'some' don't want the myth to die, but the constant trying to prevent this, is quite frankly just getting pathetic.
Now remove/change that picture!
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Org.aidepikiw (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 March 2010 Strikethrus of PAs by 12:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy this has to be a joke, [The above is unsound,] using a Nazi study and then using the Definitive Penis Size Survey which is a "study" based on the results of some guy in his basement who claims he got the results of annonomyous participants through an internet survey (without actually meeting any of these people or measuring them). Very funny, but it doesn't help your point. If anything it hurts it. TheLou75 (talk) 01:10 & :13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Strikethrus, & 1 bracketed, italicized paraphrase, of PAs by 12:25, 19 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 & :35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.106.120.3, 20 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "Studies have not found a relation between penis size and race."

Indian men have smaller penises. Please fix this.

93.106.120.3 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And you can show a scientific study that shows this, right? Please add a pointer to the study here, and I'd be happy to add it for you. --Muhandes (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sonia^♫♪ 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just refuting out of hand, i.e. taking the attitude, I won't listen until you prove it to me. Why not actually form a rebuttal? i.e. a counter argument if you don't agree! Wikipedia now seems to be the sole domain of those who care more about rules and not about creating interesting articles. It took me all of 60 seconds to google that apparently Indian men do have small penises = 1 2. Both news reports were compiled from original research conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research. The findings maybe questioned but the reports remain online on reputable websites, so their claims are verifiable.

Section: Female genital response

This section is a disaster. The second paragraph is an example in original research; some invisible "narrator" draws conclusions that are not supported by the sources: "these anatomical areas are the most sensitive, and since they're all within x inches of the introitus, most penis sizes should be satisfactory".

The fact of the matter is that different people prefer different things in bed, including penis size (among those who have sex with people who have penises). Also, just as penises vary in size, so do vaginas: some women/trans men/people with vaginas who have sex with men can accommodate larger penises, some cannot. Some who *can* accommodate larger penises do not find it particularly pleasurable.

It's not sensible for this section to jump from descriptions of anatomical parts of the XX/intersex female body and its functions to suppositions about how pressure or stimulation on this or that area of the vulvovaginal area "should" be pleasurable (with citations from men's magazines), especially when there is little to no actual input from the people whose bodies are being described.

Again, there's really too much variation in terms of what people enjoy sexually to try to make direct correlation between penis size and sexual pleasure. Some people like one particular size of penis. Some people like many sizes. Some people prefer other activities over penile-vaginal intercourse. Plenty of sexual activities do not involve a penis at all.

I removed the section in this edit. If someone wants to write a good, solid, sourced section on variations in human anatomy (both vaginal and penile) and about the breadth of variation in terms of what people find erotically pleasurable, that'd be great, but in the meantime, I think this section should go. Wtf hello (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cseatory, 8 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a website dedicated to men with large penises called Size Minded, http://www.sizeminded.com.

Also, there's a forum called Large Penis Support Group, http://www.lpsg.org.

Both sites are free to use.

I think adding these would enrich the Human Penis Size Wikipedia page, possibly under External Sites. Cseatory (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done:: per WP:ELNO. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)