Penis Size Clinical Survey

I was intrigued by reading about a medical survey that was carried out in London a while back, asking for volunteers with concerns about their penis size to take part. Have a look at this:

http://www.malesize.co.uk/Male_Size/Male_size_home.html

"You would then come to Kings College London Hospital Urology department clinic to have your penis measured (both erect and non-erect)."

I wondered how many men here would consider submitting themselves to have their penis measured by a doctor?

I wondered how many men here would consider submitting themselves to have their penis measured by a doctor?

I might even go so far as to say that anyone who would not consider taking part in such a survey (if easily done with little bother) doesn't really belong here ... ha ha.

Just kidding. But I'm sure a lot of male members would consider taking part. It sounds intriguing and interesting as a study.

By a real doctor? I would probably if they were a female. How would they expect you to get errect?

By a real doctor? I would probably if they were a female. How would they expect you to get errect?

I'm just guessing they would expect you to get erect by some sort of auto-stimulation ... but I doubt they'd allow you a choice of gender for the doctor or assistants ...

It would not bother me. I don't consider my self deficient, but I am not in the stud class either. Having said that, would I like more length and girth? Sure what man wouldn't. Every guy likes to swing a heavy bat 😄

The study sounds intriguing indeed. But it's not really a Penis Size Clinical Study. It's more of a study about some Penis Extension mechanisms.

There have been a few (not many) studies about penis size and I think (and it's just my uninformed opinion) that they're all heavily biased. The question posed by the OP "who's up for participating in a size study" is very interesting and reveals the problem with such a study: only a few would participate, and I believe they wouldn't be a representative sample. I believe the sample would be skewed both towards small ones and big ones (the ones that have issues with their size and thus think that such a study is really relevant, and the ones that are proud and like to show off), leaving average guys in the minority (although in principle they should be the majority).

only a few would participate, and I believe they wouldn't be a representative sample.

I think you're right - presumably they had some sort of acknowledgement of that in the findings?

only a few would participate, and I believe they wouldn't be a representative sample.

That's probably why the best method of getting more representative samples of all sizes, would have been back in the days of Selective Service, or even better from during the WWII and immediately post WWII era when a far larger number of young men were drafted or at least inducted - which would have given an even broader sample.

School medical exams would also have been a good opportunity, last years of High School for example, though I have no idea if male genitals are always full grown by then.

I have no idea if draftees had their penises measured or not, I rather doubt it. And just imagine the scope for parental outrage if this were done in High School. What fun in school board and PTA meetings that would have been ... 😃

All's I know is I wish I could write a post as trivial as this and get this many responses so fast! I must be boring. Besides, isn't it quality not quantity anyway?

Are you talking about penis size or post size Alex? But seriously, I think finding a representative sample is a challenge for many studies. One that has recently puzzled me is the one that found that the more expensive running shoes are, the more running-related injuries happen. The easy conclusion is that cheap running are safer. Nevertheless, many argue that those that use more expensive shoes are more likely to go to the doctor, get checked and become part of the statistics.

Maybe a widespread draft and measurement, like agracier suggested, would solve the problem, but differences in ages, level of development, races, and even nutrition could have an effect on the sample. Statistics suck!

... but differences in ages, level of development, races, and even nutrition could have an effect on the sample. Statistics suck!

Ah but not at all. It would be just such variables as you describe and others that would make a study all the more interesting.

Imagine for instance if it could be shown that good nutritional habits improve/enlarge penis size. Or if going to school longer and getting a better education could also have an effect (doubtful of course, but there may be a second or third tier correlation - or an inverse correlation or even none, which is also a valid result).

And the race variable is also something that, if I am not mistaken, has historically often been on many anthropologist's minds and if possible studied and measured.

Statistics can in many instances be utterly boring and difficult to interpret correctly, but they never suck, They often show important correlations or disprove commonly held erroneous ideas .. that is called science and we're usually the better off for it in some way or another.

But I will concede that reading too many statistics can cause headaches ... ha ha

The flaw i see with this study, is that the initial pool of gents studied already had expressed dissatisfaction with the size of their penis. This would seem to sway the end results, no? Just sayin'.

I've not seen this one before, but I have been examined and measured in the past... Both erect and flaccid.

It was medically a good call at the time, when I was just circumcised and, they needed to check I was not stretching the remnants of my foreskin too much... So yes, I have had that

Not convinced ths is genuine. Where would the ad have been posted

I remember when I was in middle school my mom made some bizarre comment about wanting to have my penis size checked by a doctor. I'm not sure why she said that. I guess she wanted to make sure mine was a normal size. I agree with jillt, I wonder how genuine this is.

Possibly fake as seems a bit odd to my mind but one never knows these days.

I'm not sure about this "survey", but I do remember a number of years ago the Channel 4 series "Embarrassing Bodies" did a program on this topic. As part of the preparation for the program, they invited men to go to the warehouse/studio they were using to have their genitals measured and photographed. I seem to remember that in order to allow true comparison to be made, the measurements and photos were taken by independent people - ensuring distance from camera, photo angle etc were consistent - and included both flaccid and erect to try and show that you can't predict one from the other. This also gave them the opportunity to determine average sizes (although not based on a huge sample).

Once they had enough pictures (many hundreds) they were all displayed in the studio as an exhibition which was then open for general visiting. The reaction of the public who visited the exhibition was very interesting - particularly at the revelation that there is no definitive relationship between flaccid and erect size.

I also seem to remember that they did a similar exhibition for women, comparing breast and vulva.

It looks like it was a genuine survey - the report is published online, if you search for 'Beliefs about Penis Size King's College London.'

There's certainly no relationship between flaccid and erect... I can be quite small flaccid, but I'm over 7" fully erect

I'am not upset about my size anymore being only about 3in when in the ready position.

I have no concerns about my penis size, even if I am a little smaller than average. The measurement sounds like fun. I wonder if they would let you get erect on your own. or use an injection to insure that embarrassment or other inhibitions would not get in the way.