Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Lack of more common penis sizes

Posted by hlennox on 30 Oct 2016 at 05:31 GMT

One major weakness in addition to the stated large % of volunteers who decline to pick a size and large % of volunteers who had no sexual experience is the lack of more models that are closer to the average sizes. For example, the following model sizes should have been used: 5 by 4.5, 5 by 5, 5.5 by 4.5, 5.5 by 5.5, 6 by 5, 6 by 5.5, 6.5 by 4.5, 6.5 by 5. Interesting study, though.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Lack of more common penis sizes

nprause replied to hlennox on 30 Oct 2016 at 11:33 GMT

Thank you for your interest in our research. It is worth mentioning that we tested for the impact of the sample's sexual experience and found it encouraging that those without a clear preference did not feel compelled to report.

There are a few likely disadvantages to the oversampling strategy suggested. The most obvious is that the "normal" range was well-characterized and selectively promoting sizes in the average range is likely to cause women to over-select in that range. In other words, the sample is no longer evenly distributed. The other limitation of that approach is general choice randomness. We had 33 samples to cover the state space, which already worried us from a "tyranny of choice" principle. To make the sample size 50 or more, as suggested, could contribute to poorer discriminability and more randomness in choice (i.e., I give up, there are too many, this is probably close).

However, we are happy to have you follow this up. The prints are available for free on Thingiverse, and we encourage scientists to use these to test follow-up hypotheses!

No competing interests declared.