Talk:Micropenis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed

I removed and rewrote some perfectly valid info to improve unity and flow. If it was yours, please forgive me. Also, I realize there is no intersex article yet, and it simply redirects to an inadequate intersexual article. I am in the process of writing it but won't replace the current version until finished. Alteripse 00:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

"Micropenis is a medical describing..." -- A medical term? A medical condition? A medical classification? A medical description? Andygoodell 01:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Assuming normal statistical deviation"?

I think the statistic of 0.6% assuming normal statistical deviation is misleading at best, unless somebody actually has some evidence that penis size is actually normally distributed. This theory is possibly credible at sizes around average, but I don't think it's realistic at the 2.5 SD's range (though I don't know if this will make the percentage higher or lower). fvw 00:35, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

"Misleading at best"? and what would you insinuate "at worst"? I'm not sure what your point is here. If you are disputing the validity of normal distribution statistics at the extreme ends of human size deviation, I can't argue. I am not familiar with all the published research on construction of normal ranges from body statistics. Many of our "normal ranges" for everything from body sizes to lab values are roughly equivalent to a 3rd to 97th percentile range, or a 5th to 95th. Physicians and others who use the statistics are aware of the arbitrary nature of the edges. Boundaries can be arguable or questionable for several reasons: (1) small enough sample size in the original statistics that the error range becomes significant at the edges of the distribution, (2) distortion of the statistics by a high enough frequency of abnormal causes that the numbers affect the distribution, or (3) a deliberate shift in favor of greater sensitivity to important disease states that overlap the normal range. So now since I put more effort into the answer than you put into your complaint, what do you think would be less misleading? How about a constructive contribution if you know more about it? Alteripse 01:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think less misleading would be not to give any statistics instead of calculating statistics based on premises that are probably not true. I don't know anything about the actual statistics, which is why I'm talking instead of changing the article directly. Pruning faulty data improves Wikipedia too. --fvw 23:13, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

See talk:penis size for answer. Alteripse 00:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Statistically, since the population of males is so large (three billion) a normal distribution of penis size can be assumed. Under a normal distribution, .6% of the results are outside of 2.5 standard deviations--Crucible Guardian 05:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that really true? As the sample size gets bigger the distribution tends to a normal distribution? I must have slept through that class. Also does this 0.6% or percentile definition mean that micropenis can never really be cured? If someone has surgery, he may not have micropenis any more but he has succeeded in creating micropenis in the next smallest guy? 19/08/05 Doesn't affect me BTW :) User:62.252.128.18

What do you mean by "has surgery"? Micropenis is pretty much incurable indeed The few options that exist can be found in Sex reassignment surgery female-to-male; since the options for a Micropenis or a lost penis are basically the same as for a completely construced ones, with some differences of course, but the main problem remains, namely "where to get the material from that we want to put there". I wouldn't exactly recomment any of those for "just" a Micropenis, and neither will most doctors. -- AlexR 13:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I came by this topic by way of this report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4071657.stm on the BBC website. The answer to your question seems to be "the forearm". I still think it's strange that by the definition of micropenis given in the wikipedia article, micropenis can never actually be cured; but merely transferred from one guy to the next. User:62.252.128.18 19/08/05

Well, that is one type of surgery I referred to above - nothing new there. Not that I'd recommend it, for a number of reasons. (One of them being the very nasty scar on the arm.)Also, it does not quite cure the underlying issue (pun not intended, but fitting anyway). The penis itself remains that small, it just gets some more tissue put on top of it. Same way some surgenons will replace a lost thumb with a toe - the thumb is still missing, only there is a sort of "organic prothesis" replacing it. (In the later case, usually a functioning one.) -- AlexR 21:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The "underlying" problem is that the penis looks small. It works, everything else is intact, so the only requirement is cosmetic. A scar on the arm is a small price to pay IMO.

Anyway I'm not sure why you objected to my use of "has surgery" when it is clear that surgery exists. My interest was more in the statistics and the definition. --62.252.128.18 07:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that I was commenting on a tangential part of cour comment. I also did not object to "has surgery" but to the assumption that after somebody had surgery, the unterlying condition would not exist any more. Nevertheless, to stick with the tangent for another moment - I doubt that you have ever seen such a scar. It's a triffle bigger than what you probably imagine - I am talking about scars like this: [1] [2] [3] or [4]. Of course, it is every person's private decision, but since what you get further down isn't always working as advertised, either - well, I personally would not recommend it; although the scar would in cases with Micropenis possibly - but not necessarily - be slightly smaller; those are transmen pictures. -- AlexR 09:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia article on the Central Limit Theorem regarding how, in large sample sizes, a normal distribution results. In statistics, we assume a normal distribution for n > 30. (Intentionally unsigned.)

You may want to re-examine your knowledge of the central limit theorem. The CLT tells us that given a sufficient number of independent variables underlying a distribution, the result will tend to be normal. This is not the same thing as saying any real-valued variable will be normally distributed given a sufficiently large sample size. I don't know whether or not penis size is normally distributed--it may be normal or nearly normal--but simple pointing at the large sample size and saying the CLT tells us it must be normal is not valid. 86.36.33.120 (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's some data to help settle this

Micropenis is a medical term. Unfortunately, like some medical terms, it may seem insensitive or insulting. But it's got a definition (albeit an arbitrary one). Smith's General Urology (McAninch, 2003) defines it as: "a penis smaller than 2 standard deviations from the norm."

And what is the norm? Winter and Faiman in 1972 did the grunt work:

Age (Years)	Length of Penis (cm ± SD)	Diameter of Testis (cm ± SD)
0.2-2	2.7 ± 0.5	1.4 ± 0.4
2.1-4	3.3 ± 0.4	1.2 ± 0.4
4.1-6	3.9 ± 0.9	1.5 ± 0.6
6.1-8	4.2 ± 0.8	1.8 ± 0.3
8.1-10	4.9 ± 1	2 ± 0.5
10.1-12	5.2 ± 1.3	2.7 ± 0.7
12.1-14	6.2 ± 2	3.4 ± 0.8
14.1-16	8.6 ± 2.4	4.1 ± 1
16.1-18	9.9 ± 1.7	5 ± 0.5
18.1-20	11 ± 1.1	5 ± 0.3
20.1-25	12.4 ± 1.6	5.2 ± 0.6

Does this vary among different populations? Sure. Shamloul, in 2005, summarized the data from 3 studies on penis sizes. I hunted another one in Korean men by Son et al (2003):

Investigator	Age Range (yr)	Flaccid Length (cm)	Stretched Length (cm)	Erect Length (cm)
Wessels et al, 1996	21–82	8.85	12.45	12.89
Smith et al, 1998	NA	NA	NA	15.71
Schneider et al, 2001	18–19	8.6±1.5	NA	14.48±1.99
	40–68	9.22±1.67	NA	14.18±1.83
Son et al, 2003	19-27	6.9±0.8	9.6±0.8	NA

I had to hunt the standard deviations for the Schneider article, which wasn't difficult, since the article is available online through our school library. Would someone make a trip to their local medical library to get the standard deviations for the other studies? There's an even older study by Schoenfeld and Beebe (1942) that may have different numbers. You may also want to get an article by Fischer (1964) that relates penis length to body height. In any case, it seems that these penis size, like most things in biology, does have a normal distribution.

Finally, all this energy about length is misspent. According to a recent survey by Eisenman (2001), the vast majority of female college students consider width to be more important for sexual satisfaction.

References

• Eisenman R (2001). "Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction". BMC Womens Health. 1 (1): 1. PMID 11415468.
• Fischer R (1964). "Penis length and body height". Proc K Ned Akad Wet C. 67: 103–4. PMID 14146295.
• McAninch JW (2003). "Chapter 38: Disorders of the Penis & Male Urethra". In Tanagho EA, McAninch JW (ed.). Smith's General Urology (16th ed. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 0071396489. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Schneider T, Sperling H, Lummen G, Syllwasschy J, Rubben H (2001). "Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men". Urology. 57 (2): 314–8. PMID 11182344.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Schoenfeld WA, Beebe GW (1942). "Normal growth and variation in the male genitalia from birth to maturity". J Urol. 48: 759–777.
• Shamloul R (2005). "Treatment of men complaining of short penis". Urology. 65 (6): 1183–5. PMID 15922413.
• Smith AM, Jolley D, Hocking J, Benton K, Gerofi J (1998). "Does penis size influence condom slippage and breakage?". Int J STD AIDS. 9 (8): 444–7. PMID 9702591.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Son H, Lee H, Huh JS, Kim SW, Paick JS (2003). "Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men". Asian J Androl. 5 (3): 185–9. PMID 12937799.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW (1996). "Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation". J Urol. 156 (3): 995–7. PMID 8709382.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Winter JS, Faiman C (1972). "Pituitary-gonadal relations in male children and adolescents". Pediatr Res. 6 (2): 126–35. PMID 5047471.

I hope this helps settle some of the arguments here. Zyryab 05:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This article has practically no citations, which is not that unusual for wikipedia -- however, if someone points out that something needs a citation, it's still incorrect to simply remove it with no explanation. The lack of citations in the "Treatment" section is particularly glaring. 67.101.221.84

Confusing sentence

"The condition is usually recognized shortly after birth, when the stretched flaccid penis of a full grown adult male measures less than 4 cm from base to tip."

This sentence makes no sense. If the condition is recognized "shortly after birth," what does the measurement of a "full grown adult male" have to do with anything?

If it's recognized shortly after birth, the measurement should be relative to other infants, not to adults.

Would whoever wrote this line please clarify?

Someone mangled the original sentence. You are right it makes no sense. alteripse 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we please add this?

I feel that the page should contain "This sex-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"

Seems reasonable. I added it. Jackmamma 19:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.126.199 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Penis envy

Who's the joker who put in "penis envy" into the "See Also"? - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.245.146 (talk • contribs)

It was inserted in this edit by User:Fastiflex. I believe it was a good faith edit, not a joke. I think you are correct, however, that does not belong in the article. --TeaDrinker 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Phalloplasty as a possible treatment ?

I have found the following article which suggests phalloplasty as a possible solution to micropenis.Unfortunately it offers very little information .Does anyone have any other sources so that we could make a section about phalloplasty as a possible treatment ? http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/041206_small_surgery.html

By the way I have added an external link containing 3 images of micropenis. I also I asked the site owner if he can release the copyrights so that we can include them in the wikipedia article too ...I will let you know if he replies :)

--Pikpatsu 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dorsal length

Which side of the penis is the dorsal side? It doesn't seem to me the positioning of the penis really lends itself to having dorsal and ventral sides. —Angr 17:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dorsal is the top side. Ventral is the side you can't directly see. alteripse 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What, the part that's inside the body? You can directly see all external sides of a penis. —Angr 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't touching it, you normally can't see the ventral side of your penis. Is this that difficult a concept? alteripse 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, some people can if it's erect, but the article does say "flaccid". Anyway, it seems backward somehow; normally, the ventral side of something is the side facing forward when you're standing up normally, and the dorsal side is the side facing backward. Given a normal flaccid penis hanging downward, though, apparently it's the dorsal side that faces forward. —Angr 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Like many technical terms, the dorsal/ventral terminology has a precise meaning that may not match someone's initial inference. I did not invent the terminology, but it is a term often used in the medical literature in this context. alteripse 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image inserted

I came across the following image Image:Micropenis erect.jpg and had originally nominated it for deletion as an orphan. In further review, I determined that this article did not have an image and one had specifically been asked for at the top of the page. Given that, I have added it to the article and reversed my nomination.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can see no evidence, beyond the name of the file, that this actually is a photo of a "micropenis". Seems equally likely its just a flacid regular penis. Unless we have a reliable source to show this particular image is of the condition. I've removed the image for now as it is original research without proper sourcing. Gwernol 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That ain't no regular penis...72.78.177.33 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I just came to this page to say 'what, no pictures?', but then I clicked on the link above (micropenis erect.jpg), and I'm now glad there aren't any pics in this article. Eeeeeew. Some things are best left to the imagination. 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

edit

added some things in the treatment section and also redone the external links.After my edit the wiki article has all (and even more) information that the micropenis faq includes so i removed it.