📊 Size Distribution Data (Clinical):
Veale, D., Miles, S., Bramley, S., Muir, G., & Hodsoll, J. (2015).
"Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penile length and circumference in up to 15,521 men."
BJU International, 115(6), 978-986.
DOI: 10.1111/bju.13010
- Mean erect length: 13.12 cm (5.17"), SD: 1.66 cm
- Mean erect circumference: 11.66 cm (4.59"), SD: 1.10 cm
- Sample: 692 men (length), 381 men (circumference)
- Method: Clinical measurements by health professionals
💕 Partner Preference Data:
Data Type: Preference research compilation
Source: Partner satisfaction surveys and feedback studies
Purpose: Satisfaction probability estimates and preference mapping
⚠️ Important Disclaimer: Size data from BJU International 2015 clinical study. Preference data compiled from research and surveys.
Individual preferences vary significantly by person, culture, and relationship context.
This is a toy model; reality is messy. Share responsibly.
🧮 Statistical Methodology:
Size Percentiles: Normal distribution model using volume index (girth² × length)
with z-scores calculated via standard normal CDF.
Preference Ratings: 31×27 grid mapping length/girth combinations to satisfaction levels
(A=ideal, B=very satisfying, C=satisfying, D=enjoyable, E=not satisfying).
📚 Additional Studies Referenced:
Herbenick, D., et al. (2014). "Erect penile dimensions of 1,661 sexually active men in the US." Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Promodu, K., et al. (2007). "Penile length and circumference: an Indian study." International Journal of Impotence Research.
⚖️ Data Quality & Limitations:
- Clinical measurements (size data): High accuracy, standardized protocols
- Preference data: Anonymous reports, inherently subjective
- Natural variation exists across populations, ages, and cultures
- Individual experiences may differ significantly from statistical models
- Measurement protocol: Bone-pressed length, mid-shaft circumference
Transparency Note: We distinguish between clinically measured size data (highly reliable)
and preference-based satisfaction estimates (inherently variable). Both serve different analytical purposes
and should be interpreted accordingly.
