Big Hard Penis
Big Hard Penis
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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? 86.46.81.235 (talk)
Why a picture of 2 circumsized penii?
Why show a pic of 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)
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)
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.
typo
In this bit:
"Most men concerned about their penis size and seeking surgical treatment for enlarging penis, overestimates"
overestimates should be overestimate
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."
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)
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)
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)
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
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 other
TASCHEN Books: The Big Penis Book
The fascinating phallus: undressed to impress
BIZAD Online Community
The timezone the user resides within.
Hahahahaha - Re: big hard problems
Please note that this penis size, jelqing and enlargement discussion forum is available as an archive only Re: big hard problems. Want to read more about women and penis size?
Sexperience - Your questions about sex - “Just how big should my ...
WARNING: This site features very frank and occasionally explicit accounts of personal experiences of sex — parental guidance is recommended
How to keep your penis hard ?
Hard Penis is possible if you take good care of your health and use herbal products to ... Several herbs are useful in terms to helping a person get a big hard penis.
Penis Enlargement Blog: MTV's Hard Times: Can Big Penis Size Boost ...
MTV's Hard Times: Can Big Penis Size Boost Limp Ratings?
Hard white big pimples on my penis --Doctors Lounge(TM)
Doctors Lounge - Fertility Answers "The information provided on www.doctorslounge.com is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient ...
jim - big hard problems
Please note that this penis size, jelqing and enlargement discussion forum is available as an archive only big hard problems. THIS FORUM IS ARCHIVED.
Hit & Run: Seen but not hard - the big penis debate - Hit & Run ...
Hit & Run: Seen but not hard - the big penis debate ... Rumours that censors sit around clutching an atlas – lest any penis shown in ...
When im on hard my penis big but when its not its very ...
When im on hard my penis big but when its not its very small please help? 2 years ago
