Welcome to "The Taseer Penis Size Survey"! For those new to this site, the discussion below pertains to the results of the most exhaustive penis size survey conducted to date. Questions concerning everything from actual penis dimensions to the possible correlation between size and other parts of the body, to "owner" satisfaction have been asked in a serious attempt to dissect penis fact from "phallic fallacy". With a combined adolescent/adult sample size in excess of 3,100 subjects, a high degree of statistical precision has been achieved.

In order to expedite the writing process of this communication,. A number of topics, however, are covered in slightly greater depth than before and I have introduced three new graphics.
Before we begin
In a number of the analyses that follow, penis size has been classified according to the subject's perceived endowment status (ref. question 43 of the questionnaire). The dimensions of this "self-ranked endowment status" are summarized in the table below.

Penis size and age

I was initially surprised by the number of responses from teenagers and, although my survey wasn't specifically designed to detect changes in penis size during puberty, the data collected so far has revealed some rather interesting findings.

As of this edition, and as illustrated in Figure 7, average erect penis length increased until the age of 16, a finding that marks a departure from the five previous editions of this page, which reported that such a developmental milestone occurred at age 17. With respect to adolescent lengths, it is interesting to note that the results presented here are almost identical to that of another. The apparent variation in average size between the ages of 16 to 49 was due to random sampling error and was not statistically significant.

The situation with regard to erect penis length beyond the age of 50 remains somewhat nebulous. According to the graph below, there was essentially no difference in size with respect to younger age groups. However, I have detected a progressive, yet slight decline in length among older men in this group. Unfortunately, due to the modest sample size of such individuals, it was not possible to determine whether this was a statistical anomaly or an anatomical consequence of the aging process.
 

On erections

The data indicates that during an erection, the average increase in penis size was 197.9%. However, for men whose flaccid penis measured 80 mm (3.1") or less, the increase was 263.2%, compared to 165.3% for those greater than this length (p<0.0001). This principle is demonstrated in Figure 8, which reveals a strong negative correlation between flaccid length and the percent increase during an erection.

It is also interesting to note that there was less variation in erect penis lengths relative to flaccid lengths. This convergence in penis size is illustrated by comparing the coefficient of variation (CV), a unitless measure of variability obtained by dividing the standard deviation by the mean and expressing the result as a percentage. The CV for flaccid lengths was 31.4 whereas in the erect state it decreased to 19.5.

When erect the position of greatest girth was as follows; head 36%, uniform 32%, base 25% and some other location 7%.

Forty eight per cent stated that their penis was straight when erect, 28% reported a deviation to the left or right and 24% claimed to have a bend (presumably in the shaft).
 

On circumcision

Unlike a previously published study in the medical literature, I did not detect a significant difference in erect length (or the other four measurements) between circumcised and uncircumcised individuals.

Overall, 70% of the subjects were circumcised, 27% were uncircumcised and 3% did not specify their circumcision status. Of the 633 men responding outside of the U.S.A. and Canada who specified their status, 64% were uncircumcised. Not unexpectedly, this compares to 40% of Canadians and only 15% of Americans.

The proportion of those claiming to be content, neutral or discontent concerning their circumcision status was almost equal between the two groups (approximately 66%, 21% and 13% respectively). Among those who were content however, there was a striking difference with regard to sexual orientation. Seventy-two per cent of circumcised straight males expressed contentment with their circumcision status while only 58% of circumcised gay or bisexuals felt the same way (p<0.001).

On correlations

With the rather impressive number of responses I have amassed since the inception of this survey, I have detected that, on average, there exists a strong relationship between erect penis length and height, as illustrated in Figure 9. For the purposes of demonstrating possible correlations between length and various hand and foot measurements, it became necessary to control for this phenomena by performing a partial correlation between length and the various measurements in question. The results of such an analysis are presented below.
 

Figure 10 reveals the significant relationship between erect length and circumference.

Size Perception

As shown in the figure below, subjects A and B were significantly over or underestimated respectively. Although subject A is of modest endowment in terms of length, his circumference is average, and this may have contributed to the overestimation. Subject B's flaccid length was correctly estimated to be 124mm (4.9"), but his predicted erect length, like that of subject A in Set 1, was underestimated. This provides further support that assessing a person's endowment status based solely on the basis of flaccid size is highly unreliable.

As in all other sets, estimates were found to be independent of age, sexual orientation, number of male sexual partners, self ranked endowment status or contentment status.
 

Some penile trivia

As in previous editions of this communication, body builders tended to be more endowed than "couch potatoes" (170.5mm or 6.7" vs. 160.7mm or 6.3" p<0.001).

In addition, the difference in flaccid length between those who are reluctant to potentially expose their penis to public scrutiny and those who are not remained strong (81.0mm or 3.2" vs. 89.6mm or 3.5" respectively p<0.001). A larger difference however, existed with respect to erect lengths (166.8mm or 6.6" vs. 153.3mm or 6.1" respectively p<0.001). A similar relationship was seen with regard to potential exposure to male family members.

As illustrated in figure 11, well endowed men had more sexual partners per year than their average or modestly endowed counterparts. The data reveals that these men were more self-confident which may, in part, explain this finding.
 

As illustrated in figure 12, a striking difference existed in the response pattern between gay/bisexual men and straight men when these individuals viewed a well endowed male (ref. survey question 47). Gay and bisexual men tended more to express arousal (36%) or awe (28%), while straight men were more likely to be indifferent (29%) or envious (21%). Among both groups, those who were indifferent had significantly larger erect penises than those who felt either intimidation or inadequacy (p<0.001).
 

SIZE PERCEPTION

SET 1

The following discussion pertains to Section E of the survey in which a number of questions were asked regarding the penis size of two subjects who were photographed while either flaccid or erect.

I was quite impressed with the accuracy with which penis size was estimated. Both Subjects A and B were estimated to be within 0.2" of their actual length (when viewed either flaccid or erect respectively). However, with respect to Subject A, respondents significantly underestimated his erect length based on a view of his flaccid penis, indicating that ones flaccid length is a highly unreliable predictor of erect length.

SET 2

Surprisingly, the results of the second set of subjects, which are summarized below, were opposite to that of the first. Based on a photograph while flaccid, survey participants successfully predicted "Subject A's" erect penis to be within 2.54mm (0.1") of the actual length. However, with respect to "Subject B", whose erect penis was photographed from the "owner's" perspective, there was a significant underestimation of the correct length. This gives some credence to the popular (but until now, unsubstantiated) belief that one's perception of penis size is dependent upon the angle from which it is viewed.

SET 3

Unexpectedly, the discrepancy between estimated and actual erect lengths was greater for this set of subjects than that found previously. Both Subjects A and B were significantly under or overestimated respectively ("significance" was arbitrarily deemed as being a difference of more than 6.4mm between the estimated and actual length). The fact that Subject A appears to be less erect and is further from the camera, may or may not have contributed to this finding.

Like the previous sets, estimates were independent of age, sexual orientation, number of male sexual partners, self ranked endowment status or contentment status.