Abstract
|
|
Discussion
Even though limited to a small,
self-selected sample, the present research using questionnaires linked
with photo documentation yielded erection data that appear intuitively
correct and support many of the basic findings of the large self-reported
data base of the Kinsey Institute. The Kinsey data on erections were
found to be an authoritative source of information for counseling—with
several emendations suggested by the new, more directly verified data.
Specifically, the photo research implied these tentative changes to the
findings of the Kinsey census sample: (1) more n-curve erections,
about 15%—rather than 5%—of the total, (2) more erection angles in
the lower ranges, with at least one fourth—rather than 7%—below horizontal,
and (3) a greater proportion of shorter erections, with about 40%—rather
than 30%—of lengths in the 4.5 to 5.75 in. range. Other findings
of the Kinsey census sample were reinforced and affirmed by the photo sample.
We believe these suggested
changes are in the correct direction, but because volunteer subjects were
used, we cannot be sure how the magnitude or source of the observed differences
are related to the general population of men in the USA. As stated
at the outset, the source of our findings could be derived from sexual
orientation, nudism, secular trend, improved and verified measurement in
the photo subjects, or self-reporting bias in the Kinsey subjects.
It seems plausible that
one of the main sources of the present findings might be deep respondent
biases away from the self-reporting of erections that are under 6 inches,
below horizontal, or n-curved. Photo verification procedures appear
to mitigate the effects of these reporting tendencies (since on these factors,
and these only, the relative frequencies were greater in the photo sample
than in the Kinsey census sample). Verification procedures cannot,
however, solve the problems associated with subject self-selection.
It is quite possible that subjects who do not volunteer are motivated in
their non-participation by the same biases that are expressed in self-reported
data. The photo sample could have produced its greater proportions
of n-curve, shorter, and lower erections through accuracy of measurement,
and nevertheless still may have been underrepresented in these areas—because these very characteristics may be a source of bias against volunteering.
If there is to be a
completely satisfactory descriptive study of erections, an adequate method
of recruiting a representative sample must be devised. Still, by
successfully obtaining photo-verified data on 81 volunteer subjects, a
first step has been taken. These new data have provided a basis for
both substantiating and tentatively adjusting findings of the Kinsey self-reported
data. Primarily, the questionnaire/photo data call for increased
percentages in some of the least-represented ranges of the erection spectrum.
On the other hand, some of the most highly-represented points in the Kinsey
census sample distributions (e.g., 6 in. length = 21.9%, and 85-95º
horizontal angle = 24.1%) are hardly credible, if, as logic would suggest,
length and angle are continuous variables. These numbers were likely
artifacts of self-report in which the presumptive "average" or the most
easily recognized position were chosen inordinately—a self-fulfilling
prophesy. If these dubiously high figures were corrected, they would
provide one source of "room" in the length and angle distributions for
the adjustments suggested by the photo research.
Haeberle, in a popular
reference, asserts: "The average length of a grown man's penis is...between
5 and 7 inches when erect."8 This gives a commendably
broad definition of the average. While the statement is undoubtedly
true, and is duly followed by several comments emphasizing variability
from one individual to the next, it still poses a problem for men who fall
outside this "average" range, especially those whose erections are shorter
than 5 inches. For them and many others, a continuum is more helpful
and informative than an average—because it enables every man to identify
a place that is his own. No erection is isolated. Each individual
can understand that his place on the continuum also implies other erections
that vary from his, in both directions, by no more than millimeters in
shape, angle, or size. This is the same comforting understanding
we have regarding our height, weight, hair color, and many other continuously
variable human traits.
The documentation of
an emphatically wide and smoothly continuous range in angle and length
is perhaps the most useful and important contribution of the questionnaire/photo
research. The broadly inclusive description presented here can be
a resource to therapists who find themselves needing to introduce factual
and cognitive elements into therapy dealing with the anxiety-laden self
perceptions of some clients.
Therapists Wanderer and Radell quote Masters, pioneering researcher on sexual
dysfunction, as saying, "When we published Human Sexual Response,
we purposely did not include information about the average size
of penises. To some degree, we hoped that by not doing so, we would
neutralize the concept that penis size is crucial to sexual response."6
The opposite view has been taken by Wanderer and Radell themselves
who say they have found "...that when sexual norms remain unknown,
anxiety generally results. This is because the unknown is frightening;
for it is worse not to know than to know the worst."9
|
