What Is Considered A Large Penis Size
PLoS One. 2015; x(ix): e0133079.
Women'southward Preferences for Penis Size: A New Research Method Using Selection amongst 3D Models
Nicole Prause
1 Department of Psychiatry, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United states of america of America,
Jaymie Park
1 Section of Psychiatry, Academy of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America,
Shannon Leung
1 Department of Psychiatry, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Usa of America,
Geoffrey Miller
2 Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico; Albuquerque, New Mexico, Usa,
Heather Hoffmann, Editor
Received 2015 Feb xi; Accustomed 2015 Jun 22.
Abstract
Women's preferences for penis size may affect men's comfort with their own bodies and may have implications for sexual health. Studies of women's penis size preferences typically take relied on their abstract ratings or selecting amongst 2d, flaccid images. This report used haptic stimuli to allow assessment of women's size think accuracy for the offset time, as well equally examine their preferences for cock penis sizes in unlike human relationship contexts. Women (Due north = 75) selected amidst 33, 3D models. Women recalled model size accurately using this method, although they made more errors with respect to penis length than circumference. Women preferred a penis of slightly larger circumference and length for one-fourth dimension (length = 6.iv inches/16.3 cm, circumference = v.0 inches/12.7 cm) versus long-term (length = half dozen.3 inches/16.0 cm, circumference = 4.viii inches/12.2 cm) sexual partners. These first estimates of erect penis size preferences using 3D models propose women accurately recall size and prefer penises only slightly larger than average.
Introduction
Both men and women often have reported discomfort with the appearance of their genitals. While non as common of a concern as torso weight, muscularity, amount of head hair and body hair, or superlative, penis size was a concern for 68.3% of 200 men in one written report [1]. Concerns about genital appearance are unique compared to other concerns about concrete appearance. Starting time, only intimate partners more often than not know the appearance of genitals. In contrast to the penis, torso weight, acne, and other features are easily observed, informing feelings of allure early in interactions. While indicators of penis size include ethnicity [two] and finger length and ratio [three, iv], most proposed cues of penis size, including male height and pes size [5], weight [6, seven], shoe size [8], and historic period [9], are unreliable. Second, no diet, pill, or practice regime affects the size or shape of genitals. However, about half of men in ane study believed that they could modify their penis size through non-surgical means [ten]. Little can be washed to modify the appearance of the penis. Opposite to some public opinion, it too is worth noting that discomfort with the advent of the penis is not impacted [xi], or is positively impacted [12], by viewing sexual practice films. Given that just intimate partner(s) view the penis, the appearance is relatively immutable, and sex activity films are not causing dissatisfaction, partner perceptions of the penis advent seem to most likely to impact men's feelings about the features of their penis.
The expectations that men have about women'due south penis size preferences appear to drive anxiety and dissatisfaction more than than some inborn dissatisfaction. In the commencement questionnaire to examine the nature of dissatisfaction with the penis direct, three of the ten items concerned a partner's perception [13]. These included "I will be alone and without a partner" and "I volition be laughed at past a partner in a sexual state of affairs". These anxieties may be unnecessary. For example, while men and women agreed that the "platonic" penis length was longer than what they thought was average, men mistakenly reported that women would detect an even longer penis ideal than the women really did [10]. Furthermore, most men seeking surgery to increment their penis size (due east.g., [14, fifteen]), actually fall inside the normal penis size range [16].
Concerns about penis size affect men'south sexual satisfaction and functioning. Of course, penis size demand non touch sexual functions like orgasm, sexual bulldoze, or pain experience. However, men who are less satisfied with their penis written report more sexual health issues [17]. A smaller penis decreases sexual confidence [eighteen], which may exist why penis size is related to sexual function. Another reason penis size may exist related to sexual operation is that anxiety concerning the partner's response may exist calculated as a cost of the relationship, which leads him to experience broad sexual dissatisfaction [nineteen].
The context of the sexual human relationship could influence penis size preferences. For example, the goal of the sexual interaction with a one-dark partner tends to exist pleasure [xx]. Women recognize that infection risks are higher from a i-night partner [21]. While women adjust their behaviors for this risk, being less likely to engage in anal sexual practice [22] and more likely to use condoms [23] with i-night partners, such risky behaviors themselves are often experienced every bit pleasurable [24]. On the other hand, vaginal intercourse always causes tears in the vaginal mucosa [25] especially in the sensitive posterior fourchette [26], so women might prefer a smaller penis less probable to stress their physiology for regular, long-term mates. Thus, women might shift their preferences for penis size depending on the type and duration of sexual relationship.
Studies of penis size preference to engagement have relied on numerical size estimates, vague qualitative descriptions, or two-D line drawings. For instance, some studies have asked participants to specify penis length preferences in centimeters [27]. Another report asked participants to indicate their preference from reading erotic passages with three qualitative penis size options (small, medium, large) [28]. All the same, humans judge sizes almost accurately when visual and haptic information are bachelor together [29]. Both sources of information are commonly bachelor in sexual interactions. Thus, in this study, three-dimensional (3D) models were used with the hope of increasing accuracy, ecological validity, and external validity. Too, most studies of penis size preference have portrayed or asked about the penis in its flaccid state [30, 31]. This may exist problematic, considering the human relationship betwixt cock and flaccid sizes has been reported as negligible [32, 33] moderate (r = .44 in [34], r = .78 in [35]), and potent (rho = .77 in [6], r = .79 in [32]). It is unclear how well flaccid size reflects erect size. Of course, intercourse tin can occur only with a sufficiently rigid penis [36]. Thus, it seemed of import to characterize preferences for penis size in its erect state. The current study used 3D models of erect phalluses to narrate women's penis size preferences for the starting time fourth dimension.
Iii-dimensional (3D) printing is just beginning to be used to appraise shape perception and categorization. On the one hand, visual second information as compared to haptic data (from 3D) result in like solutions for object similarity [37]. Each mode of information (visual or haptic) also improves categorization in the other domain [38, 39]. 3D printing could allow representation of highly problem-specific, complex structures [39]. Haptic data from 3D objects improved shape identification compared to raised lines lonely [40] and improves later performance in the visual domain [41], perchance by improving discriminability [42]. As well, haptic information is robust to differences in perceptual acuity, such as occur with crumbling [43], which brand such stimuli bonny when the visual acuity of participants may vary. This study extends the existing work using 3D stimuli to assess size preferences. This approach also permitted characterization of women'due south ability to accurately recall the size of erect phallus models for the first fourth dimension.
When flaccid and "stretched" penis sizes are characterized [44], largely by self-measurement [45], they predict erect size surprisingly poorly. Yet there are relatively few studies of erect penis size. This may reflect cultural taboos confronting researchers or doctors interacting with men who are in a sexually angry state. One study had men judge their ain erect size in relation to a banknote's length [46]. Ii studies of erect penis sizes provided kits for home measurement [47, 48]. Such self-measurements of length and circumference testify adequately practiced test-retest reliability (r = .68 to .90, [47]). Pharmacologically-induced, physician-measured erections identified an average length of 12.89 cm (SD = 2.91) and circumference of 12.3 cm (SD = 2.9; [32]). These were somewhat shorter in length (M = 14.15, SD = two.7), yet similar in circumference (M = 12.23, SD = two.2), compared to a recent, large survey [48].
Women's penis preferences may vary with their human relationship expectations. Women adopt more masculine partners for shorter-term sexual relationships [20]. Women also value intelligence more, and bewitchery less, for long term, every bit compared to short term, partners [49]. More than masculine traits, such as lower voice pitch [fifty] and (to some extent) larger penis size [51, 52] are correlated with testosterone levels, which also may influence men'southward mating goals and attractiveness. Since a larger penis size is perceived as more masculine [53, 54], we predict women will prefer a larger penis for shorter-term sexual relationships.
Women probable make penis size judgments partly using their recalled experiences. Nonetheless, it is unclear how accurately women can think penis size. Exposed to nude male images, women do attend to the genital expanse [55, 56]. People can generally recall if a penis was described every bit "large", "medium", or "small", or not described at all [28]. In the electric current written report, women's ability to recall penis size was tested by lucifer-to-sample recall, both immediately and after a delay of 10 minutes.
Materials and Methods
Stimuli: The penis models
Based on previous studies (see above) about the distributions of penis length and circumference, the boilerplate American erect penis length was estimated as 6 inches (15.2 cm) and circumference equally 5 inches (12.7 cm). Models were created to range +/- 3.0 Southward.D. across each dimension (meet Fig 1). This resulted in length ranging 4.0 inches to viii.5 inches (10.ii cm to 21.6 cm), and circumference (circumference) ranging from ii.v inches to 7.0 inches (6.four cm to 17.7 cm), using 0.5-inch (i.3 cm) increments (see Fig i). This yielded a 10 X ten matrix of 100 possible sizes. Even so, such a big selection fix could overwhelm participants. Nosotros chose to sample 1/3 of this infinite, yielding 33 models beyond the range of space.
Sizes of printed models.
Shading indicates the average penis length and girth in the Usa. Bold indicates models used for recall (immediate/delayed, counterbalanced) tests. Units are in inches.
The penis model shape was a cylinder, representing the shaft, topped past a dome, representing the penis head (encounter Fig 2). Of course, the human being penis shaft is comprised of three corpora that could be better represented by a rounded triangle and a more circuitous glans. Likewise, no veins, testicles, or other details of the penis were portrayed. These details were not represented for iii reasons. First, in that location are no mathematical descriptions available to accurately represent normal proportions of more circuitous penile structure. 2nd, women generally rate male nudes as less attractive than heterosexual men rate female person nudes [57], so making the penis model more realistic might accept provoked negative responses. Third, the report was focused on overall penis size, not penis shape or surface details. While ane motivation backside the current study was to better the ecological validity of the stimuli, these concerns suggested starting with a more simplistic, cock penis model.
Penile Models.
A) Reckoner graphic representation of one of the 'impress files' used to produce the 3D penis models. B) Examples of (4 of 33) 3D models showing length in inches. A and D represent the largest and smallest models in the fix, respectively; B and C correspond the two models (counterbalanced) used to exam retrieve for size.
Dimensions of commercial penile models do not vary systematically, so they were not advisable for research purposes. Thus, the penis models were printed using a Makerbot Replicator two in blueish ABS plastic ("Navy wool"; printer files for replications are at http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:518401). Files were created using object-oriented Tinkercad [58] and compiled to.stl formats in K-Replicator [59]. Models were light-weight, sturdy plastic with a shine surface (encounter Fig i). After printing, models were checked by measuring tape to ensure accuracy of length and circumference. None required reprinting for accuracy. The models were identified by randomly assigned messages (east.k., "M", "CC") written on the bottom of each. This was done to reduce the influence of "largest" and "smallest" anchors and also to eliminate the need for women to measure out or infer specific size. The 33 models were evenly split (11, xi, 11) in a three-tier wire handbasket to ease women'due south power to find the desired model. Baskets were randomly shuffled between participants to reduce selection bias.
Participants
Volunteer were recruited by flyers around the California university campus, the neighborhood, and local physicians' offices. The flyers stated that women were requested to volunteer for a study apropos sexuality. The flyers also stated that participants must be female person, at least 18 years sometime, sexually attracted to men, and would be paid $20. The flyer did not mention penis size preferences. Women volunteered past either phone or an online grade requesting a phone call. They completed a phone screening to confirm their eligibility (e.thou. being aged 18 or over, existence sexually attracted to men) before being scheduled every bit participants.
Procedures
Upon a participant's inflow, the Informed Consent certificate was provided, and women were given time to study information technology. Afterwards, they were given a risk to ask questions, then the experimenter asked whether they withal wish to participate. If the participant verbally consented, the experimental protocol started. The Informed Consent document stated that standing at this stage constituted consent. Participants never provided their names. Informed Consent was not documented using identifiable personal information, because it was unclear whether the new procedures might influence participants' willingness to report their penis size preferences.
Adjacent, the participant answered questionnaires (described below) presented on a computer in a private room, using a secure connection, on private laboratory server space scripted by the first author in php5. This took about 50 minutes and included the penis size preference tasks and questionnaires (encounter below). Figurer presentation of questionnaires has been shown to increase the reporting of socially less desirable behaviors [60]. After the questionnaires, she completed a 10-minute computer task (data to be reported elsewhere) assessing attention to sexual images. Afterwards, the participants was debriefed, offered the opportunity to ask questions, and given $20 cash. The study protocol, including Informed Consent protocol, was approved by the University of California, Institutional Review Board.
Questionnaire
The cocky-study questionnaires included demographic data (eastward.grand., age, ethnicity, sexual orientation), sexual history (e.thou., number of sexual partners, sexual compulsion, whether penis size played a role in relationship dissolution(due south), etc.), and electric current sexual functioning (e.one thousand. orgasm rates, ease of lubrication, relationship monogamy status, pain during intercourse). These were used to characterize the sample. Other personality questionnaires were included, such as the Sexual Desire Inventory [61] and the Sociosexual Orientation Scale [62] to narrate the sample.
Size preference and call up: Retrieve accuracy
Afterward completing the other questionnaires, the experimenter entered with one of the two examination models. Two of the original 33 models were randomly selected and reprinted (indicated in black cells in Fig 2). The experimenter informed the participant that she would be handed a model. She was instructed that she would be asked to try to recollect the size of the model after inspecting it. During the inspection, she was asked non to measure the model using any objects in the room, but no instruction was provided regarding how she used her own hands. Then, the experimenter left for 30 seconds (without observing the participant's inspection procedure), returned, took the test model from the participant and out of the testing room, and asked the participant to select which penis model (from the 33 described above) was virtually similar in size to the test model she just handled. The participant recorded the letter code from the bottom of that model into the computer.
The delayed-retrieve chore was like, except this time, the participant did non immediately search for the model. Instead, she was given ten minutes to complete the penis size preference questionnaire (below). The preference questionnaire would increase retention interference, which is desirable for ecological validity as women asked to recall a erstwhile partner's penis size may have sex activity with other new partners in the delay. Afterward this, the participant was instructed to attempt to locate the second model (from the 33 described above). The test models were counter-balanced, and then the think blazon (immediate or delayed) would not be confounded with test model size (larger or smaller).
Size preference and call back: Penis Size Preferences
Later completing the immediate call up job, participants answered 15 questions about their penis size preferences. Each involved picking ane penis size model from amidst the 33 models bachelor. The option "No answer" also was available for each. For this report, the key questions were to select the model that they believed best reflected the boilerplate of men, which size is well-nigh likely to behave a sexually transmitted infection, and which size she would prefer for different expected relationship durations. The questions about preferences for unlike types of partners were a chip more complex. For i-time partners the question was:
"Imagine you're unmarried and yous're out at a eating place with some friends. You encounter an bonny human who is also single. He seems kind, intelligent, funny, and has a slap-up task. You are feeling sexually aroused. He says he's in town for a briefing but he has to fly back dwelling house tomorrow afternoon. If you could spend only this i dark with him, what size would you desire him to exist?"
For long-term partners the question was: "What would exist the ideal size for a husband or serious, long-term beau?" The question regarding shorter-term partners clearly included much more particular. This was washed in an endeavor to control for intervening variables not of interest. For case, if a woman doubted at all for her safety with an unknown partner, she might select smaller models in the outcome of sexual set on. Thus, rubber cues were included in the characterization.
Data analyses
Recollect error was calculated equally the deviation of the dimension the participant chose minus the size of the actual sample. Thus, a positive number would signal that participants chose a model larger than what they were shown. A within-participant ANOVA was calculated with the interaction of dimension (length, circumference) by think (firsthand, delayed. Put some other way, the accuracy of recall could be afflicted by length or circumference being recalled better than the other dimension (dimension factor), past the length of the delay was until they selected a model (call up), or an interaction where length or circumference were recalled better at either the shorter or longer filibuster.
Descriptive data are provided regarding the size that women believed was boilerplate and the range women indicated for their "smallest" and "largest" sexual partner. To exam whether women's preferences differ by partner blazon, an ANOVA with dimension (length, circumference) X partner (ane-time, long term) predicting preferred inches was conducted. A custom model was specified without dimension as a main effect, considering dimensions were stipulated to be unlike in the generation of the stimuli.
Results
Participant demographics and sexual experience
All participants (N = 75) were screened to written report sexual attraction to men, and ranged in historic period from eighteen to 65. They were California residents, more often than not white or Asian, sexually experienced, currently in a sexual relationship, and had sex recently (meet Table 1). 20-seven pct of women reported that they had ended a human relationship due, in part, to a mismatch between their penis size preference and their partner's penis size (come across Table 1). More women cited that the penis was too small-scale equally a trouble, rather than that the penis was too large. The length and circumference of the model that each woman believed best represented the "average" penis size is presented in Figs 3 and 4 shows every adult female's choice of the "smallest" and "largest" sexual partner with whom she had contact.
Tabular array 1
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| Variable | M | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 24.7 | ten.5 |
| Intercourse partners (last 12 months) | iii.two | five.iii |
| Intercourse partners (in lifetime) | 6.0 | ix.0 |
| Number of penises touched (lifetime) | vi.eight | nine.0 |
| N a | % | |
| Sexual orientation (cocky-identified) | ||
| Heterosexual | 36 | 57.1 |
| Bisexual | 10 | 15.ix |
| Lesbian b | 8 | 12.seven |
| Asexual | half-dozen | ix.5 |
| Queer | three | 4.8 |
| Did non identify | 11 | 14.7 |
| Race c | ||
| White | 28 | 37.3 |
| Asian | 24 | 32.0 |
| Hispanic (not-white) | xvi | 21.3 |
| Black | ten | thirteen.three |
| Pain with intercourse | ||
| None | 28 | 37.3 |
| Balmy | 20 | 26.seven |
| Discomforting to excruciating | 27 | 36.0 |
| Frequency of intercourse (concluding calendar month) | ||
| Not once | 26 | 35.i |
| ane to iii times a month | 22 | 29.3 |
| Most once a week | ten | 13.5 |
| 2 or 3 times a week | thirteen | 17.6 |
| four times a week or more | iii | 4.0 |
| One night stand experience (lifetime) | ||
| Non one time | 34 | 45.3 |
| Once or more | 41 | 54.7 |
| Penis size concern d | ||
| A lot more than | 0 | 0 |
| A little more than | 11 | 15 |
| Nearly the aforementioned equally other women | 37 | 49 |
| A little less | 13 | eighteen |
| A lot less | 12 | xvi |
| Relationship ended due to penis size preference e | ||
| Penis besides large | five | 7 |
| Penis too small | 15 | 21 |
Size of model selected by women indicating the "average" penis size.
(Due north = 75, r = .48).
Largest and smallest penis experiences.
No evidence of ceiling or floor furnishings in women'southward choices indicating their largest and smallest sexual partner's penis size.
Think accuracy
Most (Due north = 48) women selected the exactly correct model (in both length and circumference) at firsthand recall (see Fig 5). Virtually one-half (N = 31) of women selected exactly the correct model at delayed recall. There was a primary effect of dimension predicting model choice error (F(1,73) = 11.six, p < .001, ηp 2 = .14): participants slightly underestimated penis length after the remember interval (M = -0.xviii inches or -0.46 cm error), but were very accurate recalling penis circumference (Chiliad = 0.02 inches or 0.05 cm error). There was no main effect of delay nor dimension X delay interaction despite high power (f = .one, r = .9, ane-β = .97). Given the high accuracy, analyses for preferences were conducted equally planned.
Recalled sizes (immediate and delayed) slightly shorter than bodily model with most picking exact model.
Note: "0" indicates the verbal correct model was chosen. Positive values indicate that the selected model was larger than the target model.
Does the expected relationship duration affect penis size preference?
For the penis size preferences for ane-fourth dimension or long-term partners, 15 women indicated "No reply". Analyses were conducted on the remaining participants (North = sixty). In that location was a small main effect for expected human relationship duration, F(1,59) = 4.4, p = .04, ηp 2 = .07 (see Fig half dozen), such that participants preferred a slightly larger penis size in one-time (length = 6.4 inches or 16.3 cm, circumference = 5.0 inches or 12.seven cm) partners equally compared to long-term partners (length = 6.3 inches or 16.0 cm, circumference = 4.8 inches or 12.2 cm). There was no interaction of dimension (length, circumference) and relationship elapsing. Using independent t-tests separately predicting length and circumference preferences for partner type resulted in a significant difference for the test of circumference (t(59) = 2.4, p = .02, d = .2) merely. Women preferred a larger circumference in i-fourth dimension partners (M(SD) = 5.0(.one)) relative to long-term partners (M(SD) = 4.8(.1)). As ANOVA corrects for multiple comparisons, it is a more appropriate statistical test for these data. These t-tests are noted for total disclosure of the analyses conducted. Only sixteen women selected a model as "most likely to take an STI", whereas most women declined to select a model. Of the women who did reply, the model selected as nigh likely to take an STI was significantly larger (M(SD) = 6.2(.three)) than the model women used to bespeak their ane-night stand (One thousand(SD) = 5.8(.2)) preference, F(i,15) =, p = .01, ηp ii = .35. This finding did not vary by the dimension (length, circumference).
Preference for larger penis in i-time relative to long-term relationships.
Discussion
Women attended one session in the laboratory during which they completed questionnaires well-nigh their sexual history and selected among 3D cock penis models to betoken their size preferences for one-fourth dimension or longer-term partners. The country-space appeared to well-characterize the range of women's experience, as their "largest" and "smallest" partners did not bear witness evidence of ceiling or floor effects. Women tended to recall the size of the 3D models very well, only underestimating penis length. Women preferred a larger penis size (especially a larger circumference) for one-time partners equally compared to long-term partners. While this preference for a larger phallus is above the average penis size, it is just very slightly above the boilerplate. While well-nigh declined to identify a penis size most probable to carry an STD, women selected even larger phallus sizes every bit the most likely to be infected with an STD.
A filibuster in model recall did non significantly worsen participant's recall of the model size. In fact, women were more often than not very accurate in identifying the same model at both firsthand and delayed call up. When they did brand errors, they slightly underestimated model length. 1 possible caption is that women intendance more about circumference, so they may nourish to it more [63]. Some authors accept argued that penis length really is more than of import and "good for you" to desire than circumference (e.1000., [64, 65]), but others have not replicated this reported design.
These data are generally consequent with Mautz et al. (2013), which asked women to rate the attractiveness of life-sized, projected, rotating drawings of male figures with flaccid penises of various sizes. Their participants preferred phalluses 2SD to a higher place their estimated population-average penis size, whereas our participants preferred penises that were merely a lilliputian in a higher place average. This difference may be due to their images depicting flaccid penises, whereas our models depicted erect penises.
Since women's preferences for both relationship types were slightly larger than the average male, the preferred size for the one-time partner was further from the average. Novelty itself contributes to pleasure [66], and so seeking a more novel-sized penis may be consistent with a goal to pursue pleasure primarily in i-time partners. Women may prefer a smaller penis size in a long-term partner compared to a onetime partner for reasons of both physical comfort and a preference for less masculinity in a longer term partner [67]. The deviation in pleasance motive is also suggested by genital physiology. A larger circumference might stretch the vaginal opening such that the deep structures (clitoral crura and vestibular bulbs) are more stimulated, and the clitoral glans is more stimulated by penis movement [68]. As well, the vagina is densely packed with pressure-sensitive mechanoreceptors that detect stretch sensations [69]. These appear finely tuned to detect variability in circumference, whereas the vagina is less sensitive to differences in other stimuli such every bit vibration or warmth [70]. Other studies also found that women adopt a relatively larger penis proportional to body size [31], specially with respect to circumference (e.g., [54]). Given that women typically experience more pleasurable and orgasmic sex in longer-term relationships [71], they might adopt a larger penis for short-term sex activity partly so the increased physical sensation compensates for the reduced psychological connexion. In one notable exception, a preference for general body somatotype did not differ by the human relationship duration [brief uncommitted versus long-term partners in 72].
A larger penis could contribute to infection risks, such that a larger penis on more than risky ane-fourth dimension partners elevates risk. A larger penis has been associated with higher infection rates amidst men who have sex with men [73]. Also, an increase in friction during intercourse from a condom is associated with the introduction of more than bacteria into the vagina [74, 75] and more vulvar erythema [74]. Finally, women report that condoms increment their experience of pain during intercourse [76, 77]. Annihilation that increases friction during intercourse may promote genital injury, indirectly increasing infection risk. A larger phallus would increase friction relative to a smaller phallus. These potential complications of a larger penis advise why the human penis has non evolved to be larger.
Individual differences among the women were non examined in relationship to their penis size preferences, although various female traits could collaborate with their sexual health risks. For instance, women with wider hips tend to have a higher proportion of 1-time sexual partners [78]. While women's vaginal depth and pelvic muscle tonicity has been characterized [79, 80], these traits take never been related to women'southward penis size preferences. Presumably, given the variability in vaginal size and tonicity, some women would feel more than tearing with a larger phallus than other depending on the morphology of their particular vagina.
Generating haptic stimuli was relatively cost-constructive and uncomplicated. Free software was available for generating print files. As well, the print files are shared online to permit exact future replications. Undergraduate enquiry assistants were able to create and monitor the work menses. The 3D printer used is now widely, cheaply commercially available. Expanding this model into preferences pertaining to other domains, or even for other penis shape preferences, appears desirable.
As a beginning written report using life-sized 3D models of erect penises to investigate preferences, some limitations exist. Models were not perfectly ecologically valid. They were blueish to minimize racial skin-color cues. They were made with rigid, odorless plastic. They were a simplified dome-on-cylinder form rather than realistically shaped and textured. The male torso was neither described nor portrayed. At that place were also limitations of cocky-report approaches. Men and women appear to have actually get less approval of one-time sexual partners since 2001 [81], which may touch the preferences that they are willing to written report regarding such partners. Too, a significant minority (15 of 75) of women chose not to report a preference for penis size in brusque and long term partners, but did respond both of the recall questions. Perhaps these women did not have a clear preference, consistent with weak penis size preferences reported in some previous studies [54, 65]. This could be viewed as a strength, insofar as women did not feel compelled to answer in cases where they did not feel they had a strong plenty footing to generate an answer.
Another limitation is sexual inexperience among some participants. Fifteen women in our sample indicated that they had never experienced sexual intercourse. This inexperience could underlie some of the size preferences observed. For example, women mostly anticipate more pain with their showtime intercourse than they actually feel [82], so they may prove risk-balky penis size preferences (for shorter length and thinner circumference than they may adopt with feel). Less experienced women may too be less accurate in their size estimates. Withal, a follow-upwards analysis showed that having had sexual intercourse (yeah or no) did not predict penis size preferences, arguing against this possibility. A related limitation is that the experimental protocol necessarily limited the sample size, and these women were recruited largely near a college campus. There may be other biases in the sample related to the recruitment method and sample size that were not identified.
At that place are several implications of these information for males interested in long-term female partners. Males with a larger penis may be at an advantage when pursuing short-term female partners. Also, this study provides the first data on the accuracy of women'due south penis size judgments. Furthermore, women tended to slightly underestimate the length of penis models afterward a recall delay. Women may misremember specific partners penis attributes as smaller than they really are. This may exacerbate men's anxieties nigh their penis size. Men dissatisfied with their penis size have historically benefitted more from counseling than from surgically increasing their penis size [83]. This may assistance explain why almost men seeking surgical interventions for enlarging what they perceive to be a small penis actually have a penis that falls within a normal range [xvi]. Finally, 3D printing allows greater flexibility and complexity in stimuli and highly accurate replications. This first utilise of 3D stimuli to appraise preferences is promising. Increasing print resolution and blitheness volition broaden the enquiry applications with haptic stimuli.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to give thanks numerous research assistants at University of California, Los Angeles for their assistance with data collection. We too thank Ardershir Rahman for assistance with model design and printing.
Funding Statement
These authors have no support or funding to study.
References
1. Tiggemann Chiliad, Martins Y, Churchett L. Across muscles: Unexplored parts of men's body image. Journal of Health Psychology. 2008;13(8):1163–72. 10.1177/1359105308095971 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
ii. Cheng PK, Chanoine JP. Should the Definition of Micropenis Vary According to Ethnicity? Hormone Research in Paediatrics. 2001;55(6):278–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Choi IH, Kim KH, Jung H, Yoon SJ, Kim SW, Kim TB. Second to 4th digit ratio: a predictor of adult penile length. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2011;xiii:710–4. ten.1038/aja.2011.75 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Shalaby ME, Almohsen AERM, El Shahid AR, Abd Al-Sameaa MT, Mostafa T. Penile length—somatometric parameters relationship in healthy Egyptian men. Andrologia. 2014:n/a–due north/a. ten.1111/and.12275 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Siminoski Thou, Bain J. The relationships among tiptop, penile length, and foot size. Register of Sexual activity Research. 1993;6(3):231–5. 10.1007/bf00849563 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafe G, Di Loro F, Biscioni Due south, Masieri 50. Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males. European urology. 2001;39(2):183–6. Epub 2001/02/27. 52434. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Soylemez H, Atar M, Sancaktutar AA, Penbegul N, Bozkurt Y, Onem K. Relationship between penile size and somatometric parameters in 2276 healthy immature men. Int J Impot Res. 2012;24(3):126–9. x.1038/ijir.2011.53 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Shah J, Christopher N. Can shoe size predict penile length? BJU International. 2002;90(half-dozen):586–seven. 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02974.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
nine. Schneider T, Sperling H, Lümmen K, Syllwasschy J, Rübben H. Does penile size in younger men cause bug in condom utilize? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men. Urology. 2001;57(2):314–eight. ten.1016/S0090-4295(00)00925-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
ten. Johnston Fifty, McLellan T, McKinlay A. (Perceived) Size really does matter: Male dissatisfaction with penis size. Psychology of Men and Masculinity. 2014;xv(2):225–eight. [Google Scholar]
11. Peter J, Valkenburg PM. Does exposure to sexually explicit Net material increase body dissatisfaction? A longitudinal study. Computers in Man Behavior. 2014;36(0):297–307. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.071. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Kvalem IL, Træen B, Lewin B, Štulhofer A. Self-perceived effects of Internet pornography use, genital appearance satisfaction, and sexual self-esteem among young Scandinavian adults. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Net. 2014;8(4). x.5817/CP2014-4-4 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
thirteen. Veale D, Eshkevari E, Read J, Miles Due south, Troglia A, Phillips R, et al. Beliefs about Penis Size: Validation of a Scale for Men Ashamed about Their Penis Size. The Journal Of Sexual Medicine. 2014;eleven(i):84–92. 10.1111/jsm.12294 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Nabil N, Hosny H, Kadah A, Shamloul R. Evaluation of Surgical Outcome of Penile Augmentation and Lengthening Procedures. Urologia internationalis. 2013;ninety(four):465–9. ten.1159/000347044 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Kang D, Chung J, Kim Y, Lee H, Cho South, Chang T, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Penile Girth Enhancement past Autologous Fat Injection for Patients with Thin Penises. Aesth Plast Surg. 2012;36(4):813–8. 10.1007/s00266-012-9891-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Mondaini North, Ponchietti R, Gontero P, Muir GH, Natali A, Di Loro F, et al. Penile length is normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2002;fourteen(iv):283. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Herbenick D, Schick V, Reece One thousand, Sanders SA, Fortenberry JD. The Evolution and Validation of the Male Genital Self-Epitome Calibration: Results from a Nationally Representative Probability Sample of Men in the The states. The Periodical Of Sexual Medicine. 2013;10(vi):1516–25. 10.1111/jsm.12124 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Althof SE, Cappelleri JC, Shpilsky A, Stecher V, Diuguid C, Sweeney Yard, et al. Handling responsiveness of the Self-Esteem And Human relationship questionnaire in erectile dysfunction. Urology. 2003;61(v):888–92. Epub 2003/05/09. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Lawrance M-A, Byers ES. Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal commutation model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships. 1995;two(iv):267–85. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Li NP, Kenrick DT. Sex activity similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006;90(5):468–89. Epub iii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Royer 60 minutes, Falk EC, Heidrich SM. Genital Canker Behavior: Implications for Sexual Health. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 2013;26(2):109–sixteen. 10.1016/j.jpag.2012.11.007. ten.1016/j.jpag.2012.11.007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Jonason PK, Li NP, Richardson J. Positioning the Booty-Call Relationship on the Spectrum of Relationships: Sexual simply More Emotional Than 1-Night Stands. The journal of sex research. 2010;48(v):486–95. ten.1080/00224499.2010.497984 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Kissinger P, White S, Schmidt N, Taylor SN, Mena L, Lillis R, et al. O07.ane Sexual Relationship Importance and Condom Use Amidst Men Attending STD Clinics in Two Southern Cities in the United States. Sexually transmitted infections. 2013;89(Suppl one):A38 x.1136/sextrans-2013-051184.0119 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch Due north. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;127(two):267–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Zink T, Fargo JD, Baker RB, Buschur C, Fisher BS, Sommers MS. Comparing of Methods for Identifying Ano-Genital Injury After Consensual Intercourse. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2010;39(1):113–8. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.08.024. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.08.024 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Anderson SL, Parker BJ, Bourguignon CM. Changes in genital injury patterns over time in women afterwards consensual intercourse. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2008;15(5):306–eleven. 10.1016/j.jflm.2007.12.007. ten.1016/j.jflm.2007.12.007 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Johnston L, McLellan T, McKinlay A. (Perceived) Size Really Does Matter: Male Dissatisfaction With Penis Size. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2014:No Pagination Specified. [Google Scholar]
28. Fisher WA, Branscombe NR, Lemery CR. The bigger the better? Arousal and attributional responses to erotic stimuli that depict different size penises. The journal of sex research. 1983;nineteen(4):377–96. 10.1080/00224498309551199 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Ernst MO, Banks MS. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature. 2002;415(6870):429–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xxx. Dixson BJ, Dixson AF, Li B, Anderson MJ. Studies of man physique and sexual attractiveness: Sexual preferences of men and women in Red china. American Periodical of Human Biology. 2007;xix(ane):88–95. 10.1002/ajhb.20584 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Mautz BS, Wong BBM, Peters RA, Jennions MD. Penis size interacts with body shape and acme to influence male person attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013. x.1073/pnas.1219361110 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. Penile Length in the Flaccid and Erect States: Guidelines for Penile Augmentation. The Periodical Of Urology. 1996;156(3):995–seven. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65682-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Sengezer Thou, Öztürk S, DevecI 1000. Accurate Method for Determining Functional Penile Length in Turkish Young Men. Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2002;48(4):381–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Awwad Z, Abu-Hijleh M, Basri Southward, Shegam N, Murshidi Thou, Ajlouni K. Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2004;17(two):191–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Furr KD. Penis size and magnitude of erectile change every bit spurious factors in estimating sexual arousal. Annals of Sexual practice Enquiry. 1991;4(three–4):265–79. 1992-43496-001 0843–4611,4,3–4,265–279,1991. [Google Scholar]
36. Udelson D, Park Thou, Sadeghi-Najed H, Salimpour P, Krane RJ, Goldstein I. Axial penile buckling forces vs Rigiscan radial rigidity equally a office of intracavernosal pressure: Why Rigiscan does not predict functional erections in individual patients. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2000;11:327–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Gaißert North, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH. Visual and haptic perceptual spaces testify high similarity in humans. Journal of Vision. 2010;x(xi). 10.1167/ten.11.2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Wallraven C, Bülthoff H, Waterkamp S, van Dam L, Gaißert N. The optics grasp, the hands encounter: Metric category knowledge transfers between vision and touch. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2014;21(4):976–85. 10.3758/s13423-013-0563-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Yildirim I, Jacobs RA. Transfer of object category knowledge across visual and haptic modalities: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition. 2013;126(2):135–48. 10.1016/j.knowledge.2012.08.005. 10.1016/j.noesis.2012.08.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Lawson R. Recognizing familiar objects past hand and foot: Haptic shape perception generalizes to inputs from unusual locations and untrained body parts. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014;76(2):541–58. 10.3758/s13414-013-0559-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Wallraven C. Touching on face space: Comparing visual and haptic processing of face shapes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2014;21(4):995–1002. 10.3758/s13423-013-0577-y [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Gaißert N, Waterkamp S, Fleming RW, Bülthoff I. Haptic Categorical Perception of Shape. PLoS One. 2012;7(viii):e43062 10.1371/journal.pone.0043062 [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Norman JF, Kappers AL, Beers A, Scott AK, Norman H, Koenderink J. Aging and the haptic perception of 3D surface shape. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011;73(3):908–18. 10.3758/s13414-010-0053-y [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Khan S, Somani B, Lam W, Donat R. Establishing a reference range for penile length in Caucasian British men: a prospective study of 609 men. BJU International. 2012;109(five):740–4. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10338.10 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Gebhard P, Johnson AB. The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938–1963 interviews. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1979. [Google Scholar]
46. Brody South, Weiss P. Vaginal Orgasm Is Associated with Vaginal (Not Clitoral) Sexual activity Education, Focusing Mental Attention on Vaginal Sensations, Intercourse Duration, and a Preference for a Longer Penis. The Journal Of Sexual Medicine. 2010;7(8):2774–81. 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01469.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? A method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venerology. 1995;8(2):77–81. [Google Scholar]
48. Herbenick D, Reece Thou, Schick 5, Sanders SA. Cock Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States. The Journal Of Sexual Medicine. 2014;eleven(1):93–101. 10.1111/jsm.12244 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Lee AJ, Dubbs SL, Von Hippel W, Brooks RC, Zietsch BP. A multivariate arroyo to human being mate preferences. Development and Human Behavior. 2014;35(3):193–203. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Evans S, Neave N, Wakelin D, Hamilton C. The relationship betwixt testosterone and song frequencies in human males. Physiology & Beliefs. 2008;93(four–5):783–8. ten.1016/j.physbeh.2007.11.033. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Baskin LS, Sutherland RS, DiSandro MJ, Hayward SW, Lipschutz J, Cunha GR. The Outcome of Testosterone on Androgen Receptors and Man Penile Growth. The Periodical Of Urology. 1997;158(three):1113–8. x.1016/S0022-5347(01)64400-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Boas M, Boisen KA, Virtanen HE, Kaleva Chiliad, Suomi AM, Schmidt IM, et al. Postnatal penile length and growth rate correlate to serum testosterone levels: a longitudinal study of 1962 normal boys. European journal of endocrinology / European Federation of Endocrine Societies. 2006;154(one):125–9. Epub 2005/12/31. ten.1530/eje.1.02066 . [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Eisenman R. Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. BMC women's wellness. 2001;one(1):1 Epub 2001/06/21. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Francken AB, van de Wiel HBM, van Driel MF, Weijmar Schultz WCM. What Importance Do Women Attribute to the Size of the Penis? European urology. 2002;42(5):426–31. 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00396-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Lykins Ad, Meana Thou, Strauss GP. Sexual practice differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2008;37(2):219–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Nummenmaa L, Hietanen J, Santtila P, Hyönä J. Gender and Visibility of Sexual Cues Influence Eye Movements While Viewing Faces and Bodies. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012;41(half-dozen):1439–51. x.1007/s10508-012-9911-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN. International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual Technical Report A-viii. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 2008. [Google Scholar]
59. Hoeken Z, Kintel M, Mayer A, Mets M. ReplicatorG. 2012.
threescore. Locke SD, Gilbert BO. Method of psychological cess, self-disclosure, and experiential differences: A written report of computer, questionnaire, and interview cess formats. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 1995;10(1):255–63. [Google Scholar]
61. Spector I, Carey K, Steinberg L. The Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor construction, and show of reliability. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 1996;22(3):175–xc. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. Individual differences in sociosexuality: Testify for convergent and discriminant validity. Periodical of Personality & Social Psychology. 1991;60(6):870–83. 1991-26250-001 0022–3514,60,6,870–883,1991. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Francken AB, van de Wiel HB, van Driel MF, Weijmar Schultz WC. What importance exercise women aspect to the size of the penis? European urology. 2002;42(5):426–31. Epub 2002/eleven/14. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Francken AB, van de Wiel HBM, Van Driel MF, & Weijmar Schultz WCMW. What importance practise women attribute to size of the penis? European urology. 2002;42:426–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Štulhofer A. How (Un)Of import Is Penis Size for Women with Heterosexual Experience? Athenaeum of Sexual Behavior. 2006;35(i):5–6. 10.1007/s10508-006-8989-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Bunzeck N, Doeller CF, Dolan RJ, Duzel E. Contextual interaction between novelty and reward processing inside the mesolimbic arrangement. Man Brain Mapping. 2012;33(vi):1309–24. ten.1002/hbm.21288 [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Little Air conditioning, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male confront shape. Proceedings of the Royal Gild of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 2002;269(1496):1095–100. x.1098/rspb.2002.1984 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Wallen K, Lloyd EA. Female sexual arousal: Genital beefcake and orgasm in intercourse. Hormones and Behavior. 2011;59(5):780–92. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.004. x.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.004 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Berman JR, Adhikari SP, Goldstein I. Beefcake and physiology of female person sexual office and dysfunction: classification, evaluation and treatment options. European urology. 2000;38(1):20–nine. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
lxx. Vardi Y, Gruenwald I, Sprecher Due east, Gertman I, Yartnitsky D. Normative values for female genital sensation. Urology. 2000;56(vi):1035–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Armstrong EA, England P, Fogarty ACK. Accounting for Women'southward Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in Higher Hookups and Relationships. American Sociological Review. 2012;77(three):435–62. [Google Scholar]
72. Dixson BJ, Grimshaw GM, Ormsby DK, Dixson AF. Eye-tracking women's preferences for men's somatotypes. Development and Homo Behavior. 2014;35(2):73–ix. x.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.ten.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Grov C, Parsons J, Bimbi D. The Clan Betwixt Penis Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Athenaeum of Sexual Beliefs. 2010;39(3):788–97. x.1007/s10508-008-9439-5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. Eschenbach DA, Patton DL, Hooton TM, Meier AS, Stapleton A, Aura J, et al. Furnishings of Vaginal Intercourse with and without a Rubber on Vaginal Flora and Vaginal Epithelium. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2001;183(6):913–8. 10.1086/319251 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Soper DE, Brockwell NJ, Dalton HP. Evaluation of the effects of a female condom on the female lower genital tract. Contraception. 1991;44(1):21–9. 10.1016/0010-7824(91)90103-Thou. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Crosby R, Milhausen R, Marking K, Yarber W, Sanders S, Graham C. Understanding Problems with Condom Fit and Feel: An Important Opportunity for Improving Clinic-Based Safer Sex Programs. J Primary Prevent. 2013;34(1–2):109–xv. 10.1007/s10935-013-0294-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
77. Fennell J. "And Isn't that the bespeak?": pleasure and contraceptive decisions. Contraception. 2014;89(4):264–70. x.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.012. 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.012 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
78. Simpson V, Brewer M, Hendrie C. Evidence to Propose that Women's Sexual Beliefs is Influenced by Hip Width Rather than Waist-to-Hip Ratio. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2014:1–five. x.1007/s10508-014-0289-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
79. Barnhart KT, Izquierdo A, Pretorius ES, Shera DM, Shabbout M, Shaunik A. Baseline dimensions of the human vagina. Human being Reproduction. 2006;21(6):1618–22. 10.1093/humrep/del022 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
lxxx. Pendergrass Pb, Belovicz MW, Reeves CA. Surface Area of the Human Vagina every bit Measured from Vinyl Polysiloxane Casts. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2003;55(ii):110–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Prah P, Copas AJ, Mercer CH, Clifton S, Erens B, Phelps A, et al. Consistency in reporting sensitive sexual behaviours in Britain: change in reporting bias in the 2nd and 3rd National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-two and Natsal-three). Sexually transmitted infections. 2013. x.1136/sextrans-2013-051360 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
82. Weis DL. The experience of pain during women's beginning sexual intercourse: Cultural mythology nigh female person sexual initiation. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1985;14(5):421–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Nugteren HM, Balkema GT, Pascal AL, Schultz WCMW, Nijman JM, van Driel MF. xviii-Twelvemonth Experience in the Management of Men With a Complaint of a Pocket-sized Penis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2010;36(2):109–17. x.1080/00926230903554438 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from PLoS Ane are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Scientific discipline
What Is Considered A Large Penis Size,
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558040/
Posted by: riddleilludge47.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Is Considered A Large Penis Size"
Post a Comment