Talk:Human penis size
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human penis size article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Human penis size was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
A recent review study found average erect penis length has increased over the past three decades[edit]
https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.220203 Lameringuewrangler (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of dicks on here[edit]
Is a porn cite considered a good source? I've got some potential edits in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1:4170:EC52:B579:A0ED:7404 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mainstream porn sites tend to mainly show larger penises due to the business, and I don't think a porno would be a good source for legitimate information either ways MiaPoopy (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this article is wrong[edit]
- A 2013 study of 253 men from Tanzania found that the average erect penis length of Tanzanian males was 13.12 cm (5.17 inches)
[1]https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3200
There is no content on the length of the erection anywhere in the paper as the source Adsf666 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Adsf666: thanks for bringing this to my attention. I agree, the cited source only seems to mention stretched penile length, not erect length, and the number given is 11.5cm +/- 1.6cm, not the number given in the article. I will remove this from the article. I'd be interested in finding out when this was added to the article, and who added it. — The Anome (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Asdf666: I think I see what happened: a paragraph in this revision referred to Tanzanian men's stretched penis length being smaller than the global average stretched penis length, citing this paper as a reference for the former, and using the BJU International study value for the latter, and also mentioning the BJU International erect penis length value in passing. Over the course of many edits, this seem to have morphed into the incorrect claim above, likely because of a good-faith mistake. Thanks again for catching this. — The Anome (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Penis enlargement[edit]
The article contains the sentence "At present there is no consensus in the scientific community of any non-surgical technique that permanently increases either the thickness or length of the erect penis that already falls into the normal range (4.5" to 7")." This probably needs to be revised; there now seems to be some some fairly good evidence that penile traction therapy has some effect, particularly in the treatment of Peyronie's disease, although consensus on this is still evolving. (eg [2], [3], [4]) All the other non-surgical treatments still seem to be worthless, though, and I don't know of any surgical treatments that are effective in increasing erect penis length in normal penises.
I'd greatly appreciate it if any editors with the relevant expertise could review this. — The Anome (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- All of those studies are pretty nonconclusive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Dubious validity of the BJU International review ?[edit]
This article relies significantly on that 2015 study to talk about the size of erect penises (the crux of the matter), but most of the measurements reviewed are of flaccid and stretched penises. 20 studies (n = 15 521) are included, of which only four (n = 692) measured erect penises. The two studies that measured both stretched and erect length showed a 2 and 4 inches difference between the measurements, showing that stretched length isn't a reliable proxy for erect length. The authors admit this :
"Limitations: relatively few erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length." "This was found by Chen et al. [30] who reported that a minimal tension force of ≈450 g during stretching of the penis was required to reach a full potential erection length and that the stretching forces exerted by a urologist in their clinical setting were experimentally shown to be significantly less than the pressure required. " 2001:861:4B40:C8F0:2811:6845:A0B3:77E9 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class Anatomy articles
- Low-importance Anatomy articles
- Anatomy articles about gross anatomy
- WikiProject Anatomy articles
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions