ArticlePDF Available

Test-retest reliability of the measurement of penile dimensions in a sample of gay men


Abstract and Figures

Both physiological and self-measurement methods have been employed to collect data on the dimensions of the erect penis. However, self-measurement using paper strips has often been favored as a less intrusive and time-consuming method, despite the recognition of the increased chance of bias through exaggeration. The current study aimed to establish the test-retest reliability of measurement of the erect penis using paper strips in a sample of 312 gay men. The men were issued with color-coded measuring strips printed with instructions but no calibrations, and asked to measure both the length and circumference of their partners' erect penis. Three months later they were asked to repeat these measures. Mean length on first measurement was 15.3 cm and 15.2 cm on second measurement. Mean girth at first measurement was 12.5 cm and 12.6 cm at second measurement. Test-retest reliability of measurement was found to be moderately low at r = .60 for length and r = .53 for girth. No relation was found between measurement discrepancy and the age, social class, education, ethnicity, or employment status of the partner taking the measurements. Although self-measurement strips are both convenient and acceptable, and widely reported in the literature, they only have moderate test-retest reliability. This may be due to both natural variability in penis size within subjects over time and unreliability of the measurement method.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 4, August 2002, pp. 351–357 (
Test-Retest Reliability of the Measurement of Penile
Dimensions in a Sample of Gay Men
Richard Harding, M.Sc.,
and Susan E. Golombok, Ph.D.
Received June 21, 2000; revisions received April 17, 2001, November 21, 2001, and March 11, 2002; accepted
March 11, 2002
Both physiological and self-measurement methods have been employed to collect data on the dimen-
sions of the erect penis. However, self-measurement using paper strips has often been favoredasaless
intrusive and time-consuming method, despite the recognition of the increased chanceofbias through
exaggeration. The current study aimed to establish the test-retest reliability of measurement of the
erect penis using paper strips in a sample of 312 gay men. The men were issued with color-coded
measuring strips printed with instructions but no calibrations, and asked to measure both the length
and circumference of their partners’ erect penis. Three months later they were asked to repeat these
measures. Meanlengthonfirstmeasurementwas15.3 cm and 15.2 cm on second measurement. Mean
girth at first measurement was 12.5 cm and 12.6 cm at second measurement. Test-retest reliability of
measurement was found to be moderately low at r = .60 for length and r = .53 for girth. No relation
was found between measurement discrepancy and the age, social class, education, ethnicity, or em-
ployment status of the partner taking the measurements. Although self-measurement strips are both
convenient and acceptable, and widely reported in the literature, they only have moderate test-retest
reliability. This may be due to both natural variability in penis size within subjects over time and
unreliability of the measurement method.
KEY WORDS: penile dimensions; measurement; reliability; gay men.
Scientific research has sought to establish empiri-
cal data on the dimensions of the erect penis to examine
a range of physiological and psychological issues. The
collection and reporting of scientific data has been used to
address the concerns of males regarding their normality
(Jamison&Gebhard, 1988), particularly in response to in-
creased reported dissatisfaction with phallus dimensions
andrequest forsurgicalenhancement(daRos et al.,1994);
to investigatethe relation between condom failure and pe-
nile dimensions (Han, Park, Lee, & Choi, 1999; Richters,
This article was received, reviewed, and accepted for publication under
the editorship of Richard Green.
Family and Child Psychology Research Centre, City University,
London, England.
To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Pri-
mary Care and Population Sciences, UniversityCollege and Royal Free
School of Medicine, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, England;
Gerofi,& Donovan, 1995; Tovey & Bonell, 1991); toeval-
uatethe effectivenessofpermanent elongationofthepenis
(Shealy, Cady, & Cox, 1995); to study the effects of ag-
ing on longitudinal deformation (Bondil, Costa, Daures,
Louis, & Navratil, 1992); and to estimate sexual arousal
among offenders in a sexual behavior clinic (Furr, 1991).
The penis has been measured using a variety of methods
and a wide range of dimensions has been reported. The
dimensions usually measured are length (from the pubis
along the upper side of the shaft to the tip of the glans)
and circumference (around the girth of the shaft, vari-
ously at the base, below the glans and around the glans).
A range of published measurement data is presented in
Table I.
The majority of measurements reported are from ei-
ther mainly or exclusively Caucasian populations. How-
ever, variations between population groups have been
identified. Men from different ethnic groups have been
shown to have significantly different lengths of erect pe-
nis (Han et al., 1999; Wessells, Lue, & McAninch, 1995;
2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
352 Harding and Golombok
Table I. Penile Dimension Data From Previous Studies
Erect length (cm) Erect girth (cm)
Study Method Sample MSD Range M SD Range
Jamison & Gebhard
Self report measuring strip Caucasian subsample
(N = 2770)
15.7 2.0 12.3
da Ros et al. (1994) Pharmacological erection,
measurement by researcher
Caucasian (N = 150) 14.5 9.0–19.0 11.9 9.0–15.0
Richters et al. (1995) Self-report measuring strip 97% Caucasian
(N = 156)
16.0 11.7–22.5 12.4 8.7–16.1
Coxon (1996)
Sample 1 Self report measuring strips Gay men (N = 420) 15.9 2.7 10.1–24.1
Sample 2 Verbal self report Gay men (N = 118) 16.6 2.4 11.4–26.0 13.6 2.3 10.1–21.5
Wessells, Lue, &
McAninch (1996)
Measurement by researcher,
pharmacological erection
(N = 80) 12.9 2.9 7.5–19.0 12.3 1.3 9.0–16.0
Smith, Jolley, Hocking,
Benton, & Georfi
Self report measurement strip 60% heterosexual
(N = 194)
15.7 2.3 9.0–26.0
Han et al. (1999) Self-report measurement strip Korean men
(N = 279)
12.7 1.3 9.7–17.6 10.8 1.0 7.8–13.7
Bogaert & Hershberger
Sample 1 Self-measurement report Heterosexual
(N = 3417)
15.6 1.9 12.2 1.8
Sample 2 Homosexual
(N = 813)
16.4 2.1 12.6 1.8
Original measures converted from inches to centimeters for comparison purposes.
World Health Organization [WHO], 1998). Therefore, it
is important to take into account the ethnic composition
of any sample. In addition, aging has been shown to sig-
nificantly decrease the extensibility of the penis (Bondil
et al., 1992; Delmas, Bondil, Dauge, Smet, & Boccon-
Gibod, 1991) although it has been shown that age does
not affect the size of erection of fully developed adults
(Han et al., 1999; Wessells et al., 1996). A relation be-
tween mean length of erect penis and circumcision has
been identified, with circumcised men reporting a shorter
mean penis length than those not circumcised (Richters
et al., 1995). Thus, a general population mean is best cal-
culatedfrom a broad sample of ages and races(Sutherland
et al., 1996).
The methods of penis measurement used are also
likely to affect the findings, and in the studies reported
above, a variety of clinical and self-report methods were
employed. Clinical physiological methods include the
ity); volumetric plethysmography (techniques using air or
waterdisplacementtomeasurechanges in penilevolume);
and strain gauge plethysmography (measuring penile cir-
cumference change). A popular method of measurement
is stretching of the flaccid penis. The stretched length has
been shown to be highly predictive of the erect length
(Schonfield & Beebe, 1942; Shealy et al., 1995; Wessells
et al., 1995). The strong correlation between stretched
length and erect length has led to the stretching method
being used where it is not felt appropriate to measure the
penis erect or self measurement is not favored. However,
this method is thought to be unreliable as stretching may
produce different data according to the amount of force
applied. Where possible, the erect penis can be measured
theless,temperature,arousal,and previousejaculation can
affect the dimensions of both the flaccid and erect penis.
The use of paper strips for self-measurement, pio-
neeredbyKinsey,hasbeenfound tobeanacceptablealter-
native to these more intrusive and time-consuming meth-
ods of clinical measurement (Han et al., 1999; Jamison &
Gebhard, 1988; Richters et al., 1995; Smith et al., 1998).
Typically, subjects are issued with coded strips with in-
structions on how to measure the desired dimensions and
are asked to fold/mark/tearthe strips and return them. The
high motivation and that the respondent has reading skills,
will follow the protocol, can produce a reliable erection,
and will report accurately. Although self-measurement
procedures avoid the effects of fear that may be induced
in a clinic setting, thus affecting size of erection, by self-
reporting at home there is a greater chance of bias (e.g., by
exaggeratingmeasurements) (Jamison & Gebhard, 1988).
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
Measurement of Penile Dimensions 353
The possibility of bias in self-measurement has resulted
in the questioning of the reliability of the Kinsey data
the unit of measurement of the Kinsey data (respondents
wereaskedto measure their peniledimensions to the near-
est quarter of an inch) now seems to be imprecise. It is
particularly important to note that when considering the
reliability of self-measurement methods, it is not possible
to distinguish between measurement error and actual vari-
ation in penis size on different occasions (Richters et al.,
A number of factors may affectthe reliability of self-
measurement.Forexample, methods of self-measurement
may be inappropriate or less reliable with some popula-
tions. Self-measurement has been shown to be ineffec-
tive for a sample of sex offenders (Furr, 1991). Com-
parison of self-measurement paper strips with laboratory
measurements using a plethysmograph showed unspeci-
fied “substantial discrepancies. Respondents felt that it
was important to have a large penis and often could not
recall their method of measurement. The study was aban-
doned, concluding that self-measurement was inappro-
priate for this group. The timing of measurement dur-
ing the onset and maintenance of erection also appears
to be important. The rigidity of the erection affects the
resulting measurement (Han et al., 1999) and there is a
lack of correspondence between axial and radial rigidity
(Rosen, 1998). This affects the relation between length
is accompanied by a decrease in circumference (Earls &
Marshall, 1982). A further factor that may affect mea-
surement of the erect penis is the method of gaining and
maintaining an erection. A decrease in tumescence has
been shown to be associated with being less absorbed
in erotic stimulation, and with fantasies being less vivid
(Koukounas & Over, 1993) and habituation and reduction
(Koukounas & Over, 1999). The use of stimulating ma-
terials/fantasies, and the level of engagement or novelty,
may therefore affect erect penis size. It has been argued
that men with smaller penises may opt out of measure-
ment of retest (Richters et al., 1995). However, this is
refuted by Jamison and Gebhard’s analysis of the Kinsey
data of those who chose to return measurement slips fol-
lowingdisclosure of estimated length duringtheinterview
(Jamison & Gebhard, 1988).
Although self-measurement is a common procedure
for erect penis measurement (largely due to the ease of
administration and acceptability to both researchers and
subjects), only one small study of 15 men has investi-
gated the reliability of this method (Richters et al., 1995).
It is not known, therefore, whether this type of measure-
ment method is a reliable procedure for assessing penile
dimensions. The aim of the present study was to examine
the test-retest reliability of self-measurement of erection
and was conducted as part of a clinical trial of condom
efficacy in a sample of gay men.
Two hundred and eighty-three gay couples were re-
cruited to a clinical trial of condoms, evaluating a stan-
dard versus a thicker condom (Golombok, Harding, &
Sheldon, 2001). Participants were recruited nationally via
commercial venues (bars and clubs), gay press editorials,
and community-based social, political, and AIDS service
organizations. Recruitment took place over a period of
6 months, and expenses of £1 per data sheet were paid
to those who completed the trial. Each respondent was
18 years old or over, in good general health, and gave
written informed consent to participate in the trial.
On entering the study, data were collected regarding
age, ethnicity, circumcision, education, and employment,
and each couple was issued with two sets of color-coded
the measurements and the strips were also marked with
a confidential anonymised code for participant identifica-
tion.Onestripmeasured26× 4.5cm,andwasprintedwith
instructions to measure the partner’s erect penis length
along the top of the penis from base to tip. The second
strip measured 21 × 4 cm, and was printed with instruc-
tions to measure the girth of the erect penis on the shaft
just below the glans. The strips were not marked with
any calibrations; therefore, respondents were not asked
to provide the information in scale measurements (i.e.,
centimeters or inches) in order to encourage honest re-
porting. Penile dimensions were marked on the strips, and
the strips were returned at the beginning of the study. Re-
a steel ruler. Following participation in the trial, approx-
imately 12 weeks later, each couple was sent another set
of measuring strips and asked to remeasure their partner’s
penis. Of the 586 men who completed the clinical trial,
312 men returned both sets of marked measuring strips
(i.e., on entering the trial and on completion). Participants
were not informed of the second penis measurement until
the request was made.
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
354 Harding and Golombok
Characteristics of the Sample
Of the 283 couples who completed the trial, 312 men
returned both sets of measuring strips, representing a re-
sponse rate of 55%. For participants who returned both
sets of measurement strips, the mean age was 33 years.
They were predominantly White (93%), with 2% identi-
Eightpercenthadnoeducational qualifications, 42% were
educated to age 18 (and held University entry level ex-
aminations), and 32% had a bachelor’s degree or higher.
cupations,30%wereskilled nonmanual,14%were skilled
manual, 6% were partly skilled/unskilled, 4% were stu-
dents, and 23% were unemployed. Twenty-three percent
had been circumcised. The 312 men who returned both
measuring strips did not differ significantly from the orig-
inal 566 who participated in the clinical trial with respect
to age, circumcision, education, employment status, or
ethnic group.
Test-Retest Reliability
The mean length on first measurement was 15.3 cm
(median, 15.3 cm; range, 6.5–24.4; SD, 2.4) and 15.2 cm
on second measurement (range, 8.0–24.0; SD, 2.2). The
mean girth at first measurement was 12.5 cm (median,
12.4cm; range, 6.1–18.5; SD, 1.6) and at secondmeasure-
ment was 12.6 cm (range,5.7–18.1; SD, 1.6). Dimensions
Fig. 1. Distribution of length at Time 1 with normal curve.
Fig. 2. Distribution of girth at Time 1 with normal curve.
and 2, respectively). The middle quartiles (25th–75th per-
centiles) of distribution at Time 1 represented a range of
2.9 cm in length (13.9 cm at 25th percentile, 16.8 cm
at the 75th percentile) and 1.9 cm in girth (11.4 cm at
the 25th percentile and 13.3 cm at the 75th percentile).
From Time 1 to Time 2, for length 154 subjects reported
an increase, and 158 reported a decrease (not significant)
and for girth 173 reported an increase and 136 reported
a decrease (χ
= 4.43, df = 1, p = .035). A significant
relation was found between penis length at Time 1 and
Time 2 (Pearson’s r = .60, p <.001). With respect to
girth, a significant association was also shown between
the two time points (Pearson’s r = .53, p <.001).
Relation Between Time 1 Measurement
and Subject’s Characteristics
A significant difference in penis girth was found
for employment, F(4, 520) = 3.65, p <.01, reflecting
greater girth among men of higher employment status. No
relation was found between employment status and penis
length. In addition, there was no significant difference be-
tween men who were working at the time of the study and
thosewhowerenot, and no significant differenceinlength
or girth with respect to age. Circumcision was not found
to be significantly associated with either length or girth.
Factors Associated With Measurement Discrepancy
Between Time 1 and Time 2
Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients
were calculated for each of the demographic variables of
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
Measurement of Penile Dimensions 355
the partner who had performed the measurement (age,
ethnicity, employment, education) and (i) the difference
in length between Time 1 and Time 2, and (ii) the dif-
ference in girth between Time 1 and Time 2. No sig-
nificant differences were identified for either length or
girth, showing that there was no relation between the
demographic variables and discrepancy between the two
The test-retest reliability of measurement of the erect
penis in this study was found to be r = .60 for length and
r = .53 for girth. These reliability coefficients are moder-
ately low in comparison to the reliabilityof other physical
measures, for example height, where reliability would be
expectedto begreaterthanr = .90.Itisimportanttopoint
out that the test-retest reliability coefficients reported in
the present study were calculated from a large sample,
using the methods of measurement most commonly em-
ployed. Thus, it appears that although measurement strips
are widely used in studies of penile size, they have only
ferences from Time 1 to Time 2 for length and girth are
1mmand+1 mm respectively, and p <.001 for the
association between time points in both cases.
The design of this test-retest study ensured that par-
ticipants were not aware that they would be requested to
provide a repeated measurement. This procedure was em-
ployed to reduce bias and thus increase the generalisabil-
ity of the findings. Although the sample consisted exclu-
sively of gay men, it is unlikely that test-retest reliability
would be affected by the sexuality of the respondents.
The test-retest reliability coefficients in the present study
are lower than those reported in the only similar study by
Richters et al. (1995) who found test-retest reliabilities of
r = .90 for length, r = .87 for behind the coronal ridge
and r = .68 for base circumference. However, these co-
efficients were calculated using measurements from just
15 of a sample of 156 men who had measured their erect
penis on two occasions. The findings are hard to evaluate
not only due to the small number of respondents but also
because of the lack of information on how they were se-
lected for the investigation and the time interval between
the two measurements. The sexuality of the participants
was also not reported.
Natural variation in erect penile dimensions within
subjects may explain the apparent lack of reliability in
test-retest measurements. Our sample was of adult males
with a mean age of 33 years; therefore, growth patterns
are unlikely to have affected measures, particularly over a
However,thecontributionofnatural variationinpenissize
to the low test-retest reliability is difficult to determine as
no empirical studies have demonstrated the range of vari-
ation in length and girth ofthe erect penis within subjects.
The moderately low test-retest reliability of measurement
may also result directly from the measurement tool it-
self. It is a favored instrument of measurement due to the
privacy that it affords study participants. However, this
also means that researchers cannot supervise or observe
the method’s implementation. Our data show no signif-
icant correlations between discrepancy in measurements
between the two occasions for employment status or edu-
cational level of the partner performing the measurement.
Therefore, comprehension of the instructions on the mea-
surement strips does not appear to be a factor in reliability.
As data on employment were only collected at baseline,
it is possible that participants would have reported a dif-
ferent classification at the end of the study. However, it
is unlikely that educational attainment would change over
this period, supporting the argument that comprehension
does not affect reliability.
The moderately low test-retest reliability may also
have resulted from men exaggerating the measurements
at Time 1, and then being unable to accurately reproduce
the error at Time2, that is, the men may haveremembered
accurately to what extent they had done so. Preoccupation
and concern about penis size are likely to affect the accu-
racyof reporting of self-measurement. A sample of young
(mainly heterosexual) men were found to have a tendency
to underestimate the size of their penis and 26% felt that
it was smaller or much smaller than that of other males
(Lee, 1996). In studies of gay men, 17% thought their pe-
nis was too small/thin, 12% would wish to increase its
size, and one-third worried about the size of their penis
(Coxon, 1996). Therefore, individual concerns about pe-
nile dimensions and the desire to appear to have what is
perceived as an average or above sized penis may lead
to exaggeration in methods using self-measurement. The
present study aimed to reduce the motivation to exagger-
ate the reporting of penile dimensions through the taking
of measurements by the subject’s partner. Therefore, we
would expect the effect of exaggeration on reliability to
be smaller in this study than in those using similar tools
for self-measurement.
However, the role of exaggeration cannot be dis-
counted. Interestingly, the minimum reported length in-
creased between the two time points from 6.5 cm to 8 cm.
Thismay be due to awishtoincreasethereportedmeasure
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
356 Harding and Golombok
to what is perceived as a more acceptable length. When a
different sample of gay men was asked the dimensions of
their penis, and each respondent was challenged as to the
accuracyof their response (termed the “you liar” method),
1996). It is interesting to note that our data for length and
girth (mean values 15.3 cm and 12.5 cm, respectively) are
in line with data collected using both clinical and self-
report measures (which range from 12.7 to 16.6 cm for
length and from 10.8 to 13.6 cm for girth; see Table I).
The dimensions in the present study were collected in
centimeters, and are therefore likely to be more accurate
than those using quarter inches as the smallest unit of
measurement (i.e., the Kinsey data analyzed by Jamison
& Gebhard, 1988; Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999, and the
data from Coxon, 1996). The use of larger units of mea-
surement also increases the error involved in participants
rounding up their dimensions thus reducing the accuracy
of the data.
The collection of anthropometric data using
clinically-based measurement tools does not claim to be
able to achieve precision, particularly so in the case of
surface measures of soft tissue (Farkas, 1996). Therefore,
it would seem that precision (the repeatability of a mea-
surement) and accuracy (the bias of a measurement) in
the case of lay measurement of the erect penis using paper
strips, may be expected to be low. However, a compara-
ble study of the intraexaminer reliability of head circum-
ference measurements in preterm infants (i.e., soft tissue
measurement) using paper strips reported high reliability,
with only 0.43% of error in retest measurement (Sutter,
Engstrom, Johnson, Kavanaugh, & Ifft, 1997). The au-
thors cite similar studies with high reliability coefficients
of r >.90; therefore, the present reliability coefficients
appear to be only moderate in comparison.
Self-report methods of collecting data on the flac-
cid and erect dimensions of the penis are well established
and often reported and quoted in the literature. However,
the present study has shown the reliability of this mea-
surement tool to be moderately low. This may be due to
both natural variability within subjects over time and un-
reliability of the measurement method. The role of in-
tentional exaggeration may be lower in the present data
compared to studies of self-measurement due to the data
the variability of full erection within subjects and the im-
plementation of the method is needed to clarify the causes
of the error. The body of evidence for erect penile dimen-
sions based on self-report may now be questioned, and the
practical implications of using this method should also be
The authors thank SSL International for funding this
study. We also thank the organizations who promoted our
work and all the men who participated.
Bogaert, A. F., & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relationship between sex-
ual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28,
Bondil, P., Costa, P., Daures, J. P., Louis, J. F., & Navratil, H. (1992).
Clinical study of the longitudinal deformation of the flaccid penis
and of its variations with ageing. European Journal of Urology, 21,
Coxon, A. P. M. (1996). Between the sheets: Sexual diaries and gay
men’s sex in the era of AIDS. London: Cassell.
da Ros, C., Teloken, C., Sogari, P., Barcelos, M., Silva, F., & Souto, C.
(1994). Caucasian penis: What is the normal size? Journal of Urol-
ogy, 151(Suppl.), 323A, 381.
Delmas, V., Bondil, P., Dauge, M. C., Smet, G., & Boccon-Gibod, L.
(1991). Anatomical study of penile extensibility. Journal of Urol-
ogy, 145, 405A.
Earls, C. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1982). The simultaneous and indepen-
dent measurement of penile circumference and length. Behavior
Research Methods and Instrumentation, 14, 447–450.
Farkas, L. G. (1996). Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: Past,
present, and future. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 33, 10–18.
Furr, K. D. (1991). Penis size and magnitude of erectile change as spu-
rious factors in estimating sexual arousal. Annals of Sex Research,
4, 265–279.
Golombok, S. E., Harding, R., & Sheldon, J. (2001). An evaluation of a
thickerversusa standardcondomwithgaymen.AIDS, 15,245–250.
Han, J. H., Park, S. H., Lee, B. S., & Choi, S. U. (1999). Erect penile
size of Korean men. Venereology, 12, 135–139.
Jamison, P. L., & Gebhard, P. H. (1988). Penis size increase between
flaccid and erect states: An analysis of the Kinsey data. Journal of
Sex Research, 24, 177–183.
Koukounas, E., & Over, R. (1993). Habituation and dishabituation
of male sexual arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6,
Koukounas, E., & Over, R. (1999). Allocation of attentional resources
during habituation and dishabituation of male sexual arousal.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 539–552.
Lee, P. A. (1996). Survey report: Concept of penis size. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 22, 131–135.
Richters, J., Gerofi, J., & Donovan, B. (1995). Are condoms the
right size(s)? A method for self-measurement of the erect penis.
Venereology, 8, 77–81.
Rosen, R. C. (1998).Sexual function assessmentin the male: Physiolog-
ical and self-report measures. International Journal of Impotence
Research, 10, S59–S63.
Schonfield, W. A., & Beebe, G. W. (1942). Normalgrowthand variation
in the male genitalia frombirth to maturity. Journal of Urology, 48,
Shealy, C. N., Cady, R. K., & Cox, R. H. (1995). Non-surgical elonga-
tion of the adult penis. Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic
Medicine and Surgery, 16, 144–146.
Smith, A. M. A., Jolley, D., Hocking, J., Benton, K., & Gerofi, J. (1998).
Does penis size influence condom slippage and breakage? Interna-
tional Journal of STD and AIDS, 9, 444–447.
Sutherland, R. S., Kogan, B. A., Baskin, L. S., Mevorach, R. A.,
Conte, F., Kaplan, S. L., et al. (1996). The effect of prepubertal
androgen exposure on adult penile length. Journal of Urology, 156,
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp527-aseb-375627 July 4, 2002 13:31 Style file version July 26, 1999
Measurement of Penile Dimensions 357
Sutter, K., Engstrom, J. L., Johnson, T. S., Kavanaugh, K., & Ifft, D. L.
(1997). Reliability of head circumference measurements in preterm
infants. Pediatric Nursing, 23, 485–490.
Tovey, S. J., & Bonell, P. B. (1991). Condoms: A wider range needed.
British Medical Journal, 307, 987.
Wessells, H., Lue, T. F., & McAninch, J. W. (1995). The relationship
between penile length in the flaccid and erect states: Guidelines
for penile lengthening? Journal of Urology, 153A, Abstract
No. 582.
Wessells, H., Lue, T. F., & McAninch, J. W. (1996). Penile length in
the flaccid and erect states: Guidelines for penile augmentation.
Journal of Urology, 156, 995–997.
World Health Organization(1998). The male latexcondom. Familyplan-
ning and population. Geneva: Author.
... There are some major problems with men's self-reports of erect penis length. First, it is likely that self-reports are unreliable, as low test-retest reliability was found even when gay men's sexual partners took the measurements (Harding & Golombok, 2002). Second, for several studies there was a likely possibility of volunteer bias. ...
Full-text available
Most men believe that the average length of an erect penis is greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm). This belief is due, in part, to several often-cited studies that relied on self-reported measurements, with means of about 6.2 inches (15.75 cm) for heterosexual men and even greater for gay men. These studies suffered from both volunteer bias and social desirability bias. In this review, the combined mean for 10 studies in which researchers took measurements of erect penises was 5.36 inches (13.61 cm; n = 1,629). For 21 studies in which researchers measured stretched penises, the mean was approximately 5.11 inches (12.98 cm; n = 13,719). Based on these studies, the average length of an erect penis is between 5.1 and 5.5 inches (12.95–13.97 cm), but after taking volunteer bias into account, it is probably toward the lower end of this range. Studies show that a majority of men wish they were larger, with some choosing penile lengthening surgery. These surgeries are considered by the American Urological Association to be risky. Most men seeking surgery have normal sized penises. Counseling with factual information about penis size might be effective in alleviating concerns for the majority of men who worry about having a small penis.
... Previous studies of penis size that relied on self-reports concluded that the mean length of an erect penis was 6.0 to 6.3 inches (Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999;Gebhard & Johnson, 1979;Harding & Golombok, 2002;Jamison & Gebhard, 1988;Richters et al., 1995;Smith et al., 1998;Templer, 2002). The overall mean of 6.4 inches reported in the present study (sexually experienced and inexperienced men combined) is close to these results. ...
Full-text available
Previous studies demonstrate that many men have insecurities about the size of their penises, often resulting in low sexual self-esteem and sexual problems. In the present study, mean self-reported erect penis length by 130 sexually experienced college men (6.62 inches) was greater than found in previous studies in which researchers took measurements. This suggests that many of the men embellished their responses. Only 26.9% of the sexually experienced men self-reported penis lengths of less than 6 inches, while 30.8% self-reported lengths of 7 inches or more (with 10% self-reporting 8 inches or more). The correlation with Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scores was +.257 (p < .01), indicating that men with a high level of social desirability were more likely than others to self-report having a large penis.
... По данным этих авторов база данных по фаллометрии Института Альфреда Кинси насчитывает более 6013 случаев. Однако достоверность данных, во-первых, и достоверность обнаруженных различий, во-вторых, самими авторами подвергаются значительному сомнению [40]. Были высказаны также сомнения по поводу достижения состояния полной эрекции у участников с помощью аудио-визуальной, или тактильной стимуляции. ...
Full-text available
The area of the application and use of knowledge about the genitometry of healthy people are in many areas related to the fundamental problems of anthropology and human anatomy, the study and understanding of human nature, the based on biological differences of social and gender roles, gender identity problems, psychology, human culture and history. Theoretical and practical importance of the study of phallometrical indicators of men are to their importance for clinical medicine, andrology, reproductive medicine, urology, sexology and forensic medicine. The purpose of the study - reviewing of available russian and foreign scientific sources on phallometry of healthy men in terms of social and biological factors which causing their variability, the anatomical and anthropological aspects of its study. Shown the oneness and nonsystematic research on the russian groups in contrast to the foreign studies, including a meta-analytical studies and the development of nomograms. It is shown that the studies in different ethnic and regional populations may help in solving the problems associated with subjective and objective causes of men’s dysmorphophobia and the need for a comprehensive study them. Key words: penis, penile size, phallometry References: 1. Rashton D. Filipp. Rasa, evolyutsiya, povedenie. Vzglyad s pozitsii zhiznennogo tsikla/ Per. s angl. D.O. Rumyantseva.- M.: Profit Stayl, 2011.- 416s. 2. Kim W.W. History and Cultural Perspective/ In Book: Penile Augmentation. Eds: N.Ch. Park, S.W. Kim, D.G. Moon.- Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2016.- P. 11-31. 3. Gayvoronskiy I.V., Mazurenko R.G. Variantnaya anatomiya venoznogo rusla polovogo chlena vzroslogo cheloveka // Morfologiya.– 2012.– T. 141.– № 1.– S. 47-51. 4. Gorbunov N.S., Prokhorenkov V.I., Samotesov P.A., Andreychikov A.V., Pomiluykova E.O. Polovoy chlen: morfologicheskaya predraspolozhennost' erektil'nykh disfunktsiy/ N.S. Gorbunov i dr.- M.: Meditsinskaya kniga, N. Novgorod: Izd-vo NGMA, 2004.- 137s. 5. Azadzoi K.M., Vlachiotis J., Pontari M., Siroky M.B. Hemodynamics of penile erection: III. Measurement of deep intracavernosal and subtunical blood flow and oxygen tension// Journal of Urology.- 1995.- Vol. 153.- № 2.- P. 521-526. 6. Chen J., Gefen A., Greenstein A., Matzkin H., Elad D. Predicting penile size during erection// International Journal of Impotence Research.- 2000.- Vol. 12.- Issue 6.- P. 328-333. 7. Mondaini N., Ponchietti R., Gontero P., Muir G.H., et al. Penile length is normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures// International Journal of Impotence Research.- 2002.- Vol. 14.- Issue 4.- P. 283-286. 8. Colombo F., Casarico A. Penile enlargement// Current Opinion in Urology.- 2008.- Vol. 18.- №6.- P. 583-588. 9. Dillon B.E., Chama N.B. and Honig S.C. Penile size and penile enlargement surgery: a review// International Journal of Impotence Research.- 2008.- Vol. 20.- P. 519–529. 10. Mondaini N., Gontero P. Idiopathic short penis: myth or reality?// Brit. J. Urol. Int.- 2005.- Vol. 95.- Issue 1.- P. 8-9. 11. Park N.Ch., Kim S.W., Moon D.G. Penile Augmentation.- Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2016.- 271pp. 12. Robertson A. World's first penis REDUCTION surgery: Teenager requested op after his manhood grew so large it stopped him having sex// Daily Mail.- 2015; February, 12// URL: Data obrashcheniya 01.01.2016 13. Benson J.S., Abern M.R., Levine L.A. Penile shortening after radical prostatectomy and Peyronie’s surgery// Current Urology Reports.- 2009.- Vol. 10.- P. 468-474. 14. Haliloglu A., Baltaci S., Yaman O. Penile length changes in men treated with androgen suppression plus radiation therapy for local or locally advanced prostate cancer// Journal of Urology.- 2007.- Vol. 177.- P. 128–130. 15. Savoie M., Kim S.S., Soloway M.S. A prospective study measuring penile length in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer// Journal of Urology.- 2003.- Vol. 169.- P. 1462–1464. 16. Campbell M.F., Wein A.J., Kavoussi L.R. Campbell-Walsh Urology. Editor-in-chief Alan J. Wein; Louis R. Kavoussi, et al. 9th Ed.- W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, 2007.- P. 3751–3754. 17. Belousov I.I., Kogan M.I., Ibishev Kh.S., Vorob'ev Kh.S., Khripun I.A., Gusova Z.R. Razmery polovogo chlena pri sakharnom diabete 2 tipa// Urologiya.- 2015.- № 6.- S. 82-86. 18. Awwad Z., Abu-Hijleh M., Basri S., Shegam N., Murshidi M., Ajlouni K. Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction// International Journal of Impotence Research.- 2005.- Vol. 17.- № 2.- P. 191–195. 19. Lynn R. An examination of Rushton’s theory of differences in penis length and circumference and r-K life history theory in 113 populations// Personality and Individual Differences.- 2013.- Vol. 55.- Issue 3.- P. 261-266. 20. Veale D., Miles S., Bramley S., Muir G., and Hodsoll J. Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15 521 men// BJU International.- 2015.- Vol. 115.- № 6.- P. 978-986. 21. Khaǐrullin R. Segmental 2:4 digit ratio. Unilateral, bilateral and hand-type differences in men// HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology.- 2011.- T. 62.- № 6.- S. 478-486. 22. Khayrullin R.M., Filippova E.N., Butov A.A., Kasterina A.V., Khayrullin F.R., Zerkalova Yu.F. Lineynye zavisimosti znacheniy pal'tsevogo (2d:4d) indeksa u lits muzhskogo pola// Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 23: Antropologiya.- 2011.- № 2.- S. 16-24. 23. Vasil'ev I.V., Koryakin M.V., Akopyan A.S. Korrelyatsionnyy analiz razmerov polovogo chlena // Rossiyskie morfologicheskie vedomosti.- 1998.- № 1-2.- S. 35-39. 24. Dmitrieva O.A., Gromasheva O.S. Programma "control" dlya opredeleniya vozmozhnosti polovogo akta bez narusheniya tselosti devstvennoy plevy// Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza, 2004.- № 2.- S.21-23. 25. Khayrullin P.M., Tikhonov D.A., Mirin A.A., Svitaylo M.P. Anatomo-antropologicheskie pokazateli fizicheskogo razvitiya i reproduktivnogo zdorov'ya yunoshey// Morfologiya.- 2009.- T. 136.- № 4.- S. 146a. 26. Tikhonov D.A., Khayrullin R.M., Mirin A.A. Korrelyatsii razmerov polovogo chlena yunoshey i molodykh muzhchin s sostavom tela i urovnem obshchego testosterona krovi// Morfologicheskie vedomosti.- 2011.- № 1.- S. 8-64. 27. Schonfeld W.A., Beebe, G.W. Normal growth and variations in the male genitalia from birth to maturity// Journal of Urology.- 1942.- Vol. 48.- P. 759-777. 28. Kinsey A.G., Pomeroy W.B., Martin C.E. Sexual behavior in the human male.- Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1948.- 809pp. 29. Bondil P., Costa P., Daures J.P., Louis J.F., Navratil H. Clinical study of the longitudinal deformation of the flaccid penis and of its variations with aging// European Urology.- 1992.- Vol. 21.- P. 284–286. 30. Da Ros C. Caucasian penis: what is the normal size?// Journal of Urology.- 1994.- Vol. 151.- P. 323A. 31. Wessells H., Lue T.F., McAninch J.W. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation // Journal of Urology.- 1996.- Vol. 156.- Issue 3.- P. 995-997. 32. Ponchietti R., Mondaini N., Bonafe M., Di Loro F., Biscioni S., Masieri L. Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males// European Urology.- 2001.- Vol. 39.- P. 183–186. 33. Son H., Lee H., Huh J-S., Kim S.W., Paick J-S. Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men// Asian Journal Andrology.- 2003.- № 5.- P. 185-189. 34. Promodu K., Shanmughadas K.V., Bhat S. and Nair K.R. Penile length and circumference: an Indian study// International Journal of Impotence Research.- 2007.- Vol. 19.- № 6.- P. 558–563. 35. Ajmani M.L., Jain S.P., Saxena S.K. Anthropometric study of male external genitalia of 320 healthy Nigerian adults// Anthropologischer Anzeiger.- 1985.- Vol. 43.- № 2.- P. 179-186. 36. Schneider T., Sperling H., Lummen G., Syllwasschy J., Rubben H. Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? A prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men// Urology.- 2001.- Vol. 57.- P. 314–318. 37. Smith A.M., Jolley D., Hocking J., Benton K., Gerofi J. Does penis size influence condom slippage and breakage?// International Journal of Impotence Research.- 2005.- Vol.-17.- № 2.- P. 191-195. 38. Bogaert A.F., Hershberger S. The relation between sexual orientation and penile size// Archive Sexual Behavior.- 1999.- Vol. 28.- P. 213–221. 39. Grov C., Wells B.E., Parsons J.T. Self-reported penis size and experiences with condoms among gay and bisexual men// Archives of Sexual Behavior.- 2013.- Vol. 42.- № 2.- P. 313-322. 40. Harding R. et Golombok S.E. Test-retest reliability of the measurement of penile dimensions in a sample of gay men// Archives of Sexual Behavior.- 2002.- Vol. 31.- № 4.- P. 351-357. 41. Seo J.T., Choe J.H. Patient Selection and Counseling/ In Book: Penile Augmentation. Eds: N.Ch. Park, S.W. Kim, D.G. Moon.- Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2016.- P. 33-40.
... (1) Any congenital or acquired penile abnormality (e.g. Peyronie's disease, hypospadias, intersex, hypospadias, phimosis; penile cancer; previous penile or prostatic surgery) Accepted Article (2) A complaint of small penis size or seeking augmentation (3) Erectile dysfunction [8,16] (4) A self-measurement reading rather than a measurement taken by a health professional [17] (5) Measurements made from cadavers. ...
Objectives To systematically review and create nomograms on flaccid and erect penile size measurements.Methods Study key eligibility criteria: measurement of penis size by a health professional using a standard procedure; a minimum of 50 participants per sampleExclusion criteria were samples with a congenital or acquired penile abnormality. previous surgery, complaint of small penis size or erectile dysfunctionSynthesis methods: Calculation of a weighted mean and pooled standard deviation and simulation of 20,000 observations from the normal distribution to generate nomograms of penis size.ResultsNomograms for flaccid pendulous (n = 10,704, mean 9.16cm, sd 1.57) and stretched length (n=14,160, mean 13.24cm, sd 1.89), erect length (n = 692, mean 13.12cm, sd 1.66), flaccid circumference (n = 9,407, mean 9.31cm, sd 0.90); and erect circumference (n = 381, mean 11.66cm, sd 1.10) were constructed.Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6.Conclusionspenis size nomograms may be useful in clinical and therapeutic settings to counsel men and for academic research.Limitations: a relatively small number of erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was with flaccid stretched length.
Background Penile length measurement techniques vary widely in published studies leading to inaccurate and nonstandardized measurements. Aim To review the methodology used to report data in studies evaluating penile length and provide a detailed recommendation in conducting future high-quality research. Methods The MEDLINE database was searched for randomized clinical trials and open-label prospective or retrospective studies. Outcomes The panel reviewed the modality of data reporting on these specific areas: patients’ age and assessment, patient position, type of measurement instrument used, penile length technique description, examination conditions, and actual examiner. Results Overall, 70 studies investigating penile length were selected; among these, 72.85% included at least 50 patients: 16 prospective studies, 5 randomized clinical trials, and 49 retrospective cross-sectional studies. Amongst all studies, 90% reported to measure penile length by health care practitioners in clinical settings. Penile length was assessed in all 70 studies, whereas penile girth was measured in 57.14% of patients. A semi-rigid ruler was the most commonly used measurement aid to assess penile length/girth in 62.86% of studies. Penile measurements were reportedly obtained: (i) stretched state, 60%; (ii) flaccid state only, 52.68%; and (iii) during erection, 27.43%. All studies investigating the penile length in an erect state were simultaneously assessing penile length in the flaccid state. About 90% of studies investigated penile length in adults, whereas 10% were conducted in adolescents. Clinical Implications The use of shared methodology to assess penile length in both adults and adolescents allows more accurate and standardized measurements. Strength & Limitations A systematic review of the published literature allowed proper data interpretation in order to provide accurate recommendations. Main limitations of the study relied on a relatively limited number of databases for the identification of potentially eligible studies. Conclusion The methodology used in studies measuring penile length should be precise and standardized in order to provide accurate data to both clinicians and researchers. Cakir OO, Pozzi E, Castiglione F, et al. Penile Length Measurement: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations, a Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2020;XX:XXX–XXX.
Data regarding the size of the adult penis is of great importance to both clinicians and researchers. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the preferred method for the evaluation of penile size. Various and conflicting methods are reported in the literature. We review the data on measurement methods of the flaccid, stretched, and erected penis with the aim of constructing a recommendation for best practice. A systematic search for articles on penile length and girth measurement techniques was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochran Library. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English before August 2018 were reviewed. All authors evaluated the methods and results sections presented in each publication. Relevant, demonstrative publications are reported in this review. We did not find definitive evidence favoring one measuring method over the other. Therefore, we advocate the use of our recommendations for penile size measurement in future publications.
Full-text available
Men’s satisfaction and sexual function is influenced by discomfort over genital size which leads to seek surgical and non-surgical solutions for penis alteration. In this article we report the results of a retrospective study of 355 cases of cosmetic elongation, enlargement and combined elongation and enlargement phalloplasty. We found a significant improvement in length at rest, stretched length and circumference at rest at 2, 6 and 12 months post-surgical procedure (all p < 0.0001). 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was also increased at 12 months post-surgery compared to baseline (p < 0.0001). This was consistent with an IIEF-5 improvement of 6.74% compared to baseline. This study is clinically relevant due to the large cohort of patients included and because it is the first study to use an inverse periosteal-fascial suture not described previously as part of the surgical methodology.
General overview of some neurobiological, hormonal and genetical differences between sexes is presented. Besides, cortical spreading depression which is closely associated with important pathologies including stroke, seizures and migraine was measured using K+ -sensitive microelectrodes. It has been shown that cortical spreading depression is induced at much lower levels of extracellular potassium in female rat telencephalon cortex than in male one.
This chapter reviews seminal research and theory regarding gay men's identities, their desires, and their sexual behavior. First, it discusses the emergence of the gay identity and describes how meanings of the "gay community" have changed in response to fluid social/political climates, HIV, and technology. Next, it considers the role of desire in gay men's sexual partnerships and behaviors, focusing on masculinity, penis size, and semen/ejaculation. Third, it elaborates on the array of sexual behaviors in which gay men engage and describes the various types of relationships that are common within gay partnerships. The chapter concludes by positing future directions for research with gay men, focusing on the measurement of sexual orientation and the role that social policy can play in improving the lives of gay men.
Background Male condoms act as mechanical barriers to prevent passage of body fluids. For effective use of condoms the mechanical seal is also expected to remain intact under reasonable use conditions, including with personal lubricants. Absorption of low molecular weight lubricant components into the material of male condoms may initiate material changes leading to swelling and stress relaxation of the polymer network chains that could affect performance of the sealing function of the device. Swelling indicates both a rubber-solvent interaction and stress relaxation, the latter of which may indicate and/or result in a reduced seal pressure in the current context. Methods Swelling and stress relaxation of natural rubber latex condoms were assessed in a laboratory model in the presence of silicone-, glycol-, and water-based lubricants. Results Within 15 minutes, significant swelling (≥ 6 %) and stress reduction (≥ 12 %) of condoms were observed with 2 out of 4 silicone-based lubricants tested, but neither was observed with glycol- or water-based lubricants tested. Under a given strain, reduction in stress was prominent during the swelling processes, but not after the process was complete. Conclusions Lubricant induced swelling and stress relaxation may loosen the circumferential stress responsible for the mechanical seal. Swelling and stress relaxation behavior of latex condoms in the presence of personal lubricants may be useful tests to identify lubricant-rooted changes in condom-materials. Implication For non-lubricated latex condoms, material characteristics – which are relevant to failure – may change in the presence of a few silicone-based personal lubricants. These changes may in turn induce a loss of condom seal during use, specifically at low strain conditions.
Full-text available
A review of medical and psychological literature reveals that the most common concern among males is inadequate penis size. There has been, to this date, very little published in the medical literature on the subject of penis size. Current studies done on 7 adult males replicated those reported in England by Dr. Brian Richards. In the 7 males there was an average increased length in the penis of 0.67 inches, and an average circumference increase of 0.5 inches. The technique is worth considering in those individuals who have psychological concerns about penis adequacy.
Full-text available
As part of a study investigating the adequacy of the Australian Standard for latex condoms, we arranged for self-measurement of the erect penis by a volunteer sample of 156 men, predominantly Caucasian. The kits contained illustrated instructions and paper tapes which the respondents mailed back to us marked with creases to indicate their dimensions. Mean penis length was 16.0 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.2-19.8 cm) and circumferences were: base 13.5 cm (95% CI 10.7-16.2 cm); shaft just below coronal ridge 12.4 cm (95% CI 10.0-14.8 cm); glans 11.9 cm (95% CI 9.6-14.2 cm). Repeat measures of 15 men showed intraclass correlations (r) of 0.90 for length, 0.68 base circumference, 0.87 behind ridge and 0.87 glans. Non-users of condoms were more likely to have narrower penises. In a subsample of 66 men who reported on perceived condom comfort, men with wider penises (base circumference) were more likely to find condoms too tight. Men with longer penises were more likely to complain that condoms were too short. Circumcised men had shorter erect penises than uncircumcised men (p < 0.05). The paper recommends that the measurement technique described in this study should be applied to other populations, and that condoms should be manufactured and marketed in a wider range of lengths and widths.
Full-text available
It has been recently shown that in the early stages of erection, the human penis undergoes a substantial length change that is not detected using circumferential measurement devices. The present report introduces a relatively simple device that can assess changes in both length and circumference. The device promises to provide a low-cost alternative to the precision and sensitivity associated with plethysmography.
The purpose of this study was to measure the erect penile length and circumference in Korean males. The subjects (n = 279, mean age 26.8, range 20-38 years) were drawn from five colleges and seven companies in the Seoul metropolitan area. The data were collected using a modified standardised self-measurement technique on the erect penis. Measurement tools (paper tapes) were designed for user convenience and to minimise measurement errors. Respondents were carefully instructed how to use the tapes for measuring their penile size after self-stimulation. The distances between marks on the returned tapes were measured with a steel ruler to the nearest 1 mm. Mean length of the erect penis was 126.6 mm (95% Cl 125 to 128 mm, median 125 mm) and mean circumferences were 112.8 mm (95% Cl 83 to 141 mm, median 113 mm) at the base, 107.5 mm (95% Cl 78-137 mm, median 108 mm) at the shaft just below the shaft-glans junction, and 113.3 mm (95% Cl 77 to 146 mm, median 113 mm) at the glans. Measurement variations with age (20-24, 25-29 and over 30 years) were not statistically significant. These Korean men's penises on average had a more or less cylindrical shape which was narrower in the middle and they were smaller by all parameters than published samples of Caucasian men. Korean men need a wider range of condoms than is currently marketed to them.
Differences in penis size or in the magnitude of change in penis size to full erection can be confounding factors in phallometric assessment of erotic preference. This paper reviews this issue and studies the effect of penis size and magnitude of change in penis size on decisions which might be made in the assessment and treatment of sex offenders. Various techniques for attempting to correct for individual differences are discussed, including the use of percentage of full erection scores, relative arousal scores, and ipsative z-scores. Two studies were undertaken to improve estimates of percentage of full erection scores. In one of these studies normative data on penile circumference in the flaccid state was used to predict full erection. In the other study, self measurements of penis size were used. Results indicated that predictions of full erection from flaccid state may be useful. Self measurements were not found to be useful. Suggestions are made which may minimize the effect of individual differences in penis size in phallometric assessment.
Purpose: We provide guidelines of penile length and circumference to assist in counseling patients considering penile augmentation. Materials and methods: We prospectively measured flaccid and erect penile dimensions in 80 physically normal men before and after pharmacological erection. Results: Mean flaccid length was 8.8 cm., stretched length 12.4 cm. and erect length 12.9 cm. Neither patient age nor size of the flaccid penis accurately predicted erectile length. Stretched length most closely correlated with erect length. Conclusions: Only men with a flaccid length of less than 4 cm., or a stretched or erect length of less than 7.5 cm. should be considered candidates for penile lengthening.
The length changes of the flaccid penis provoked by a maximum manual stretching of the glans have been measured in 905 men in order to study its biomechanical qualities. Our study shows that the flaccid penis is deformable, extensible and elastic in its longitudinal axis. The analysis of the variations of these biomechanical properties with aging shows a significant decrease. Thus, the biomechanical behavior of the flaccid penis during stretching is highly different in young men and old men. This distortion difference according to age proves the physiological importance of the penile distortion since impotence significantly increases with age. As the vascular mechanisms may be disregarded during flaccidity, these penile physical features of the flaccid penis are only due to tissue mechanisms. Consequently, any distortion loss would reflect a tissue impairment, very likely a progressive senile fibrosis of cavernous tissues.