2013-14 Penis Size Study, Journal of Sexual Medicine

Just came across this recent study, had not seen it before.

Self-reported, men were provided with two "measurement tools" as electronic files they printed out to measure length and girth.

Mean Erect Length = 14.15 cm (5.5708 inches)
Mean Erect Circumference = 12.23 cm (4.814 inches)

Interesting read, interesting charts. Attaching full PDF (was a free download from site listed below, attaching for your convenience)

"Erect Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States"
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Volume 11, Issue 1, pages 93–101, January 2014

Debby Herbenick PhD, MPH1,*, Michael Reece PhD, MPH1, Vanessa Schick PhD1 andStephanie A. Sanders PhD2,3
Article first published online: 10 JUL 2013

DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12244

Abstract
Introduction
Penile size continues to receive popular and empirical attention. Little is known about the process of self-measurement and whether the behaviors a man engages in to become erect for self-measurement are associated with his erect penile dimensions.

Aims
The article aims to assess men’s erect penile dimensions in a study in which the men would presumably be motivated to report accurate information about their penis size; and to explore associations between men’s erect penile dimensions, their method of measurement, and their demographics.

Methods
Data are from an Internet-based baseline phase of a large prospective daily diary study that compared men’s use of a standard-sized condom to men’s use of a condom sized to fit their erect penis.

Main Outcome Measures
The main outcomes are participant characteristics, activities engaged in during self-measurement process, and self-reported erect penile length and circumference.

Results
For this sample of 1,661 men, the mean erect penile length was 14.15 cm (SD = 2.66; range = 4 to 26 cm), and the mean erect penile circumference was 12.23 cm (SD = 2.23; range = 3 to 19). Participant characteristics were not associated with measured length or circumference. Most men measured their penis while alone, using hand stimulation to become erect.

Conclusions
In this sample of men who measured their erect penile length and circumference for the purposes of receiving a condom sized to fit their erect penis, we found a mean erect penile length of 14.15 cm and a mean erect penile circumference of 12.23 cm. The self-reported erect penile dimensions in this study are consistent with other penile dimension research. Also, findings suggest that mode of getting an erection may influence erect penile dimensions. Additionally, how a man becomes erect for self-measurement may be associated with his erect penile length and/or circumference. Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, and Sanders SA. Erect penile length and circumference dimensions of 1,661 sexually active men in the United States. J Sex Med 2014;11:93–101.

Converted the Erect Penile Dimensions chart to inches.

Measurement method:

Men who were eligible to participate in the study viewed an electronic consent form. Those who consented to participate in the study were able to download printed materials, including two erect penile measurement tools (one that used a letter-coding measurement system and a second that consisted of a centimeter-based measurement system) and detailed, illustrated directions about how to measure their erect penis, from the underside base and choosing the letter or numerical code that is “closest to the end of the head of your penis,” for the purposes of the study. More information about the tool, including an illustration of it, is published elsewhere [17]. Analyses presented here use data from the centimeter-based measure of their erect penile dimensions (erect length and circumference). Because the study involved mailing condoms to men that were sized to fit their erect penis, it was necessary for men to first submit data related to their erect penis dimensions. A total of 1,661 men (91.1%) returned to the study website to report data related to their erect penile length, erect penile circumference, and other measures.

So they measured from the underside? And we are speakin of self-reported measures. One of potential partecipants self reported an erect size of over 14”. The study is based on a good numerical sample so it is very interesting.

I tried to track down the article that contains "more information about the tool, including an illustration of it" but haven’t tried THAT hard:

Reece M, Herbenick D. Rates of condom breakage and slip- page using a condom fitted to penile length and circumference. Eur J Sex Health 2006;15(S1):36.

As to the underside measurement, I am ass-uming it was done that way because of the condom component of the study. After guys measured and reported, they were sent custom fit condoms. From article below:

"Thus, the men had a strong incentive and motivation to report their size accurately, otherwise they would run the risk of receiving condoms that were too big or too small and, therefore, of no use."

Here is excerpt from a Harvard sociology prof describing the study:

Sex Question Friday: What Is The Average Penis Size?
August 02, 2013
Dr. Justin J. Lehmiller

http://www.lehm iller.com/blog/ … rage-penis-size

In this study, 1,661 sexually active men aged 18 and older who were living in the United States were recruited for a study on condom fit and feel [1]. The men were asked to self-report on their penile dimensions, but were informed that they would be provided with custom fit condoms in exchange for this information. Thus, the men had a strong incentive and motivation to report their size accurately, otherwise they would run the risk of receiving condoms that were too big or too small and, therefore, of no use. All men downloaded a measurement tool that that they could print from their computer and use to measure their erect penile length and circumference (i.e., “girth”).

Results revealed that the average erect penile length was 14.15 cm (5.57 inches), while the average penile circumference was 12.23 cm (4.81 inches). Participants whose partners helped them become erect for the measurement by providing oral stimulation reported larger penises than those who used other methods of achieving an erection (e.g., fantasy, masturbation). No associations were found between penis size and participant age, race, or sexual orientation. However, it is important to note that the sample was predominately young (90.2% were aged 18-39), White (82.8%), and heterosexual (88.1%). Thus, some of the subgroups were too small to perform meaningful statistical comparisons. As a result, these findings should not be interpreted as being characteristic of all men—rather, these data speak primarily to young, White, heterosexual men in the U.S. who were interested in receiving a fitted condom.

Perhaps the most interesting and surprising thing about these data is how consistent the results were with studies of penis size based upon clinical measurements, which have reported average lengths in the range of 12.9-14.5 cm (5.1-5.7 inches) and circumferences in the range of 11.9-12.3 cm (4.7-4.8 inches) [2]. If we contrast the new data with self-report studies in which men did not have an incentive to report accurately (i.e., where no custom fit condoms were offered), the average numbers skewed quite a bit higher, with lengths ranging from 15.6-16.6 cm (6.1-6.5 inches) and circumference ranging from 12.2-13.6 cm (4.8-5.4 inches) [2]. Thus, the methods used in the new study appeared to reduce men’s tendency to exaggerate.

But when measured from the underside the measure is way longer than measured from the above. At least 1” in difference for most of people I think. So this consistency with other studies is a bit surprising.

All of this sounds oddly familiar to me. (I think it has been talked about before)

Measurement on the underside.

Condom research as incentive for honesty.

A girth range from 3-19cm - This has always bugged me. I mean, 19cm seems very unlikely but 3cm?? That’s significantly less than my little finger. I just cannot believe that. How can a study be taken seriously that contains such extreme and unconfirmed outliers?

I agree that the underside-length cannot be exactly compared to other methods of measuring but since it seems to generally be a bit longer than NBPEL its consistency with other studies does not seem too surprising to me. Anyway, since the results don’t seem too much out of the ordinary or with other words, since this study does not seem to reveal anything new of interest, I won’t object. Yet I wonder, how such studies can still get funding…

If I measured mine from the bottom id prob be an inch longer. Im curious as to what device was used as well as the instructions.

So for those of you who wear condoms, about how much further are you pulling on the underside of the condom on the bottom of your penis than from the top-side (BPEL-like, I think)?

I ass-ume that is where the guys would start the underside measurement. Since the goal was to be fitted for a custom-fit condom.

Seems like that would be pretty inaccurate. At least for me since i have some turkey neck and that would def give a different reading.

I think the tool for measurement was just a paper sheet, like in the Kinsey’ study.

I’m impressed seeing all these people with big and huge girth. I mean, in a 1661 group, 167 men have 6” and more EG! And 13 with more than 7” EG!?

"From the underside base and choosing the letter or numerical code that is “closest to the end of the head of your penis,”

If a measure this way a got a LOT more than my size.

“Rates of condom breakage and slip- page using a condom fitted to penile length and circumference.”

Just from self report, but I passed a lot of time from my life figuring out why was so damn hard to put a condom, me and my GF at that time. It happens those are not my size, go figure, I only discovered this here on thunders.

Ok guys, still haven’t tracked down the article which goes into detail about the measuring tool and the instructions given for measurement. Looks like will require a physical visit to a real medical library. Which I will eventually do, unless one of you beats me to it.

However here is a link to wikipedia’s collection of pictures of penises in condoms. Who knew they had such a thing????

For what it is worth, in the side view pics, it seems the bottom entrance of condom (underside) aligns with top entrance of condom. So to me is making sense that the numbers here are pretty consistent w clinically measured studies.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

Category:Penises in condoms
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
http://commons. wikimedia.org/w … ises_in_condoms

Can’t post penis pics in this forum, or I would have attached a couple pics from there to show what I mean.

Yeah. The consistency is actually part of the reason I posted it. There are a fair amount of members here who are definitely in denial about real-world penis size.

Pure speculation here until I see the article, but my ass-sumption is these are probably base girth measurements. (Custom condom fitting to address issue of condom slippage).

At least for me, my base is considerably thicker than my mid-shaft.

The reference [17] points to Debby Herbenick, who works for the Kinsey institute; so probably they used just a paper ruler, like in the original Kinsey research:
“….Those who consented to participate in the study were able to download printed materials, including two erect penile measurement tools”

moreover, Herbenick writes:
“The standard way to measure your penis is to place a ruler or other measuring device under the erect penis such that the bottom of the ruler is flush against your skin and the penis lays length-wise on the ruler.”

I think they never did any study and this is just advertising.