WorldPenisSize: analysis of listed sources

See Race Realism page for more.

Source listing: and


  • Standard deviation not considered
  • Some articles do not mention ethnicity of participants
  • Different methodologies used
  • Only sources for countries considered
  • Spelling errors in the source citations left intact

The following table shows the discrepancies between the data sources listed and the values presented.



Website data (in.)

Source data (in.)

Human Andrology: August 2011 – Volume 1 – Issue 2 – p 48–50  doi:10.1097/01.XHA. 0000399177. 60827.7e Original articles: Relationship between penile size and body measurements (Arabic countries) Nasar, Taha Abdl; Gadalla, Amr; Zeidan, Ashraf; El Batrawy, Mahmoud; Ghanem, Housen

Possibly Egypt

6.2 (Egypt)


Establishing a reference range for penile length in Caucasian British men: a prospective study of men (UK); Shahid Khan, Somani Bhaskar, Wayne Lam, Roland DonatArticle first published online: 28 JUN 2011  DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10338.x © 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL




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. (Italy) Eur Urol 2001; 39:183-6. (Italy)




Penile Length of average boys in Taiwan(…) (Taiwan)CHUNG-HSING WANG1, WEI-DE LIN2, DA-TIAN BAU2, CHANG-HAI TSAI1, DA-CHENG LIU1, FUU-JEN TSAI1


Is this about children or adults?

Male penis length average in sub-Saharan Africa, circumcision and relation to AIDS: a review[HTML] (Africa) van nih.govN Westercamp, RC Bailey – AIDS and Behavior, 2007 – Springe

Article does not exist, Westercamp & Bailey’s article is titled “Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review”

Size of external genital organs and somatometric parameters among physically normal men younger than 40 years old (Greece) Spyropoulos E, Borousas D, Mavrikos S, Dellis A, Bourounis M, Athanasiadis S.. Urology 2002; 60: 485-91.




Bogaert, A. F., & Hershberger, S. L. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. (Central Europe) Archives of Sexual Behavior 28:213-221.(PMID:10410197)[9]

Central Europe

What does sexuality have to do with average national penile sizes? Article analyzes Kinsey’s data of Afro and Euro-Americans, not Central Europeans.

Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians, (Jordan) Z Awwad, M Abu-Hijleh, S Basri… – International journal of …, 2004 –




JE Ferrer, JD Velez… – The journal of sexual …, 2010 – Online Library … Prevalence of erection in Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela (South America)

South America

Ferrer and Herrera’s article is entitled “Age-related morphological changes in smooth muscle and collagen content in human corpus cavernosum” and does not discuss (far less measure) penis lengths

Siminoski K and Bain J (1993) The Relationship Among Height, Penile Length, and Foot Size. Annals of Sex Research 6(3):231-235




Average Penile Length.. (Chile) AB Seabra… – J. Mater. Chem., 2009 – Universidad Católica de Valparaiso, Chile (1973–1975)

I am pretty sure the Journal of Material Chemistry does not discuss penises. Seabra’s article is “Nitric oxide-releasing vehicles for biomedical applications” and passingly states that nitric oxide is an erectile stimulator but does not give any measurements for Chileans

Male teenagers copulate earlier in the USA, Allan Mazur , Carolyn Halpern, J.Richard Udry Syracuse University, University of North Carolina, University of North Carolina. Received 14 June 1993; revised 26 January 1994; Available online 4 June 2002. Ethology and Sociobiology Volume 15, Issue 2, March 1994, Pages 87-94


Mazur’s article is entitled “Dominant looking male teenagers copulate earlier” and discusses “Dominance; Fitness; Coitus.” I doubt penis size is even mentioned.

van Driel, M. F., Weijmar Schultz, W. C. M., van de Wiel, H. B. M., & Mensink, H. J. A. (1998). Length of the penis. British Journal of Urology, 82, 81–85


Does not give any values but simply discusses surgical lengthening.

Penis size increase between flaccid and erect states: An analysis of the Kinsey data Journal of Sex Research Volume 24, Issue 1, 1998 DOI:10.1080/ 00224498809551408 Paul L. Jamisona & Paul H. Gebhardb, pages 177-183 Available online: 11 Jan 2010

USA (Europeans only)


6.21 (study is self-reported and known to be flawed)

Schneider, T., Sperling, H., Lummen, J., Syllwasschy, J., & Rubben, H. (2001). Does penile size in younger men cuase problems in condom use? A prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men. Urology, 57, 314– 318



5.7 (younger data set), 5.6 (older data set)

Wessells, H; Lue, TF; McAninch, JW (1996). “Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation”. The Journal of urology 156 (3): 995–7. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65682-9. PMID 8709382




Sengezer, M. Ozturk, S., & Deveci, M. (2002) Accurate method for determining functional penile length in Turkish young men. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 48, 381–385. Son, H., Lee, H., Huh, J., Kim, S. W., & Paick, J. (2003)




Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men. Asian Journal of Andrology, 5, 185–189

South Korea


3.8 (does not include fat pad)

Schonfeld, William A. (April 1943). “Primary and secondary sexual characteristics: Study of their development in males from birth through maturity, with biometric study of penis and testes”. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 65 (4): 535–49. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1943.02010160019003 (inactive 2010-02-22).


No access to source

Khah, J; Christopher, N (2002). “Can shoe size predict penile length?”. BJU international 90 (6): 586–7. doi:10.1046/j.1464- 410X.2002.02974.x. PMID 12230622




Chen, J.; Gefen, A.; Greenstein, A.; Matzkin, H.; Elad, D. (2000). “Predicting penile size during erection”. International journal of impotence research 12 (6): 328–333. doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3900627. PMID 11416836.




CONCLUSION: This site cannot be trusted to be consistent with naming sources and listing values.


18 thoughts on “WorldPenisSize: analysis of listed sources

  1. Pingback: Censorship and the lack of scholarship « Ethnic Muse

  2. Interesting – any explanation for the discrepancies?

    Also, have you looked into the discussions on testicle sizes? For example “”Sexual Selection and the Origin of Human Mating Systems” (2009) summarizes a group of studies, and suggests a similar pattern of smaller asian testicles:

    “Turning to measurements of combined testes size, there is a strong trend towards the occurence of small testes in men from Asia (China, Japan, Korea, and perhaps in India) as compared to measurements from European and African populations, or their ethnic derivatives. (e.g., in the USA and Australia.) These differences are quite striking […] smallest by far are the testes of 209 Hong Kong Chinese, weighed in two separate studies.”

  3. The discrepancies show that the author of that site is not quite good at lying. I would understand an occasional mistake since that’s the nature of multiple statistics but his errors are simply too much to make him a worthy researcher.

    There isn’t much data/analysis on ethnic testicular variations though I think that there is a case for anti-Asian bias in interpretation of the available data since the average testes weight ranges from 10-15g (McQueen 2005) which was found in the Hong Kong Chinese sample. Discussion is also too evolutionarily based and doesn’t for instance, consider nutrition which would be an issue circa 1960 when the study was performed. There is also a clear decline in the weights with age amplifying the need to use multiple factors rather than simply state an evolutionarily sex competition thesis. Frankly, evolution is being used as a simple explanation for everything anatomical without any real analysis which is poor science and racist IMO. Different studies yield different results with some indicating East Asians as smaller (Chang et al. 1960) while Jin et al. (1999) shows slight ethnic differences between Chinese (in China), Chinese (in Australia) and Europeans (in Australia): total vol (mL) 20.7, 20.4, 22.6. Differences in this study however, could be accounted for by height and weight, the Euro-Aussies being taller and heavier.

    Chang, K., Hsu, F. Chan, S. and Y. Chan. Scrotal asymmetry and handedness. Journal of Anatomy 1960; 94(4): 543–548.

    Jin, B., Turner, L., Zhou, Z., Zhou, E. and D.J. Handelsman. Ethnicity and Migration as Determinants of Human Prostate Size. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1999; 84(10): 3613-3619.

    MacQueen, Hilary. 2005. The Science of Sperm. [Accessed: 2010-07-25].

  4. Pingback: Inductive Bayesian Logic « Ethnic Muse

  5. Hey ethnicmuse, I’ve come across a decent amount of East Asian institutional studies on Asian penile lengths, all which point to an average of 5.3-5.5 inches (fat pad pressed):

    5.3 inches; Department of Urology, Chosun University, Korea:

    5.5 inches; College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Korea:

    5.3-5.4 inches; Beijing Medical University, China:

    5.35 inches; Taiwan Sexual Dysfunction Advisory Council and Training, Taiwan:

    Shoot me an E-mail if you have questions, as I’m pretty “well-versed” on the clinically-measured averages around the world.

  6. On second thought, I just saw your post on peer-reviewed studies across the world. Great stuff.

    I’ve a question, though. How certain are you that the two measurements (12.45 cm and 12.89 cm) from the US Wessells’ study were bone pressed? I only have access to the abstract, so I don’t know, but the Taiwan study I linked above mentions the Wessells’ study, and attributes a 15.74 cm BPEL to it. Admittedly, this measurement seems much too high in comparison to measurements from all the other studies without self-reported measurements, therefore a 12.89 cm measurement would make a lot more sense.

    Also, in case you were curious about erect girths/circumferences (EG), here is a summary of the information I found:

    10.9 cm EG (Israel study) (sample size: 55) (13.6 cm BPEL)
    11.17 cm EG (Korean study) (sample size: 150) (13.42 cm EL, unclear if BP)
    11.25 cm EG (Spanish study) (sample size: 582) (13.58 cm EL, unclear if BP)
    11.46 cm EG (Indian study) (sample size: 134) (13.01 cm EL, unclear if BP)
    11.9 cm EG (Caucasian men, da Ros) (sample size: 150) (14.5 cm BPEL)
    11.93 cm EG (Taiwanese study) (sample size: 39) (13.58 cm BPEL)
    12.11 cm EG (Korean study) (sample size: 287) (14.06 BPEL)
    12.3 cm EG (US study, Wessels) (sample size: 80) (12.9 cm NBPEL)
    12.40 cm EG (German study, group A) (sample size: 111) (14.48 cm BPEL)
    10.99 cm EG (German study, group B) (sample size: 32) (14.18 cm BPEL)

    More specifically,

    10.9 cm EG (Israel study) (sample size: 55) (13.6 cm BPEL)
    11.17 cm EG (Korean study) (sample size: 150) (13.42 cm EL, unclear if BP)
    11.25 cm EG (Spanish study) (sample size: 582) (13.58 cm EL, unclear if BP)
    11.46 cm EG (Indian study) (sample size: 134) (13.01 cm EL, unclear if BP)
    11.9 cm base EG, 11.2 cm mid-shaft EG (Caucasian men, da Ros, Brazilian study) (sample size: 150) (14.5 cm BPEL)
    11.93 cm EG* (Taiwanese study) (sample size: 39) (13.58 cm BPEL)
    12.11 cm EG (Korean study) (sample size: 287) (14.06 BPEL)
    12.3 cm mid-shaft EG, 12.19 cm base EG (US study, Wessels) (sample size: 80) (12.9 cm NBPEL)
    12.40 cm base EG*, 10.96 cm glans EG* (German study, group A) (sample size: 111) (14.48 cm BPEL)
    10.99 cm base EG*, 10.42 cm glans EG* (German study, group B) (sample size: 32) (14.18 cm BPEL)
    *estimated from erect width

    The Spanish study wasn’t a peer-reviewed study, but it was conducted by researchers from the “Spanish Society of Andrology”.,

    • Thanks, will look at these. Sorry about your comments going into moderation, not sure why since it was configured to allow comments.

    • The Wessel 12.89 wasn’t bone pressed, the value was 15.74 if I recall correctly. I only recently realized that I had access through my university to the article for free so I can confirm that the 12.89 was NBPEL. Thanks for asking.

  7. I’m posting using a twitter account, so that’s probably the reason. Since you have access to the full article, could you confirm that the erect base circumference size in the Wessells’ study is indeed 12.19 cm (I got this from a second hand source)? Thanks in advance.

    • I left it as erect (E) because I couldn’t find their methodology. The link doesn’t say anything about that, you sure this is BP?

    • Yes, I contacted him and he sent me his study in Portuguese minus all the figures unfortunately. Anyway, the text states: “O comprimento foi determinado com auxílio de uma fita métrica, desde o púbis até a extremidade da glande.” which translated is “The length was determined with the aid of a tape measure from the pubic bone to the tip of the glans.” So the length is BPEL (bone pressed erect length).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.