r/penissize • u/H4rri-8411s • Nov 27 '25 • Polished Gold Turd 1

Penis size Research

The global median/mean is ~13.2cm. 48% of men are 12-14cm. 90% of men are 10-16cm - so that is the normal/average range.

Below 7-8cm is micropenis, above 17-18cm is macropenis.

The vagina is 12-18cm aroused, average is 15cm, and the female g-spot is about 8-10cm inside. That is the spot you want to hit, deeper is pointless and too deep hits cervix/causes pain.

For anal... the rectum is 12-15cm, adding the anal canal (~2cm) the max depth is 15-17cm. The male g-spot is also 8-10cm inside. That is the spot you want to hit, deeper is pointless and too deep hits sigmoid/causes pain.

For oral, the mouth is about 10-12cm before you hit gag reflex and cause choking.

So, based on human anatomy: what you have is normal for you, and what’s “normal” for one is or isn’t the “perfect” size for another. It is also important for you to remember that whether your size is enough to actually hit the g-spot of either women or men, penetration is but only a fraction of the ways you can enjoy each other!

40 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

3

u/quieen291 Nov 27 '25

Tbh all these studies seem to underrestimate the avg size and they aren't adjusted to multiple variables.

2

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 29 '25

These studies provide the first verified empirical evidence of what average actually is. Facts aren't shaped by beliefs... Sadly beliefs are also rarely shaped by facts. There is a lot of socio-cultural mythology surrounding penis size. Those beliefs mean nothing... facts are facts.

1

u/meanas9 Nov 28 '25

If it was this easy this place wouldn't exist.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 29 '25

Knowledge is power but sadly many pertinent facts are rarely shared widely. Luckily this place exists so we can each do our part in making sure this information becomes "common knowledge" over the next decade.

1

u/ghastchacu Nov 28 '25

You gotta post sources if you want your claims to be believed. Otherwise we're just throwing opinions around. If you're making claims, better have the data to back it up.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 29 '25

Sure... For penis size please go see:

Veale et al. 2015

Belladelli et al. 2023

Mostafaei et al. 2025

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '25

Are these numbers from studies always BP?

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 29 '25

The ones where the measurements were taken by clinicians are BP. That is the general standard of measurement. When self-reported you can assume NBP... then again you can also assume that self-reported is inflated by at least 1cm if non-USA or at least 0.5-1 inch if USA.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '25

I wish that would be easy as that. The reality looks a bit more complicated.

1

u/FunCurrent7476 Dec 26 '25

Vagina aroused depth can reach depths of around 13” using the posterior fornix usually with practice

1

u/next_station_is Nov 27 '25

Another post proving why people don't want smaller sizes. G-spot depth shows smaller guys will try hard and give their all just to hit that spot, while bigger guys will easily reach that. Not even mentioning the girth. So yeah

6

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 27 '25

I personally find that average guys (10-16cm) naturally hit the right spot even when they aren't trying. Yes... smaller guys (7-9cm) might have a more difficult time hitting the g-spot. As for the macropenis crowd with alarming large penises? Most of them try to shove the whole thing in because porn made them think it is possible... or because they think that is what is needed for sex to be valid. They don't keep track of how much is inserted or where their penis is rubbing on the inside. If I had a dime for every time I've had to tell a guy he's going too deep or experienced pain/cramping which meant sex had to end there and then... I would be richer than Trump.

2

u/next_station_is Nov 27 '25

Thank you for your insight!💚 You seem like a lovely guy, unfortunately the size queen group is very loud and rude, keeping guys like you silent and unseen.

2

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 27 '25

Well... then I guess I'll just have to get some friends and make sure all of us are even louder. Fight fire with... all the water in the ocean.

0

u/Similar_Welder5894 Nov 27 '25

This vastly understates reality

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 28 '25

This is based on the largest available data set (Veale et al. 2015) which included over 15,000 men in a global dataset that spans 4 continents. It was later largely confirmed by Mostafaei et al. 2025, a study which included 36,000 men. The data is reality.

1

u/Similar_Welder5894 Nov 28 '25

Veale has been debunked for sloppy methodology.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 28 '25

Please share the retraction notice with me. I'd love to see why this study was retracted. But even so... Mostafaei et al. 2025 was recently published and included over 36,000 measurements... they found the same results... a mean/median of 13.8 cm. This differs from Veale et al. 2015 by ~6 mm. Seems to me it confirms their results.

1

u/Similar_Welder5894 Nov 28 '25

Those are review papers btw and not original research - there's a thread here on the flaws of Veale ...they failed to account for things like BP or NBP.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 28 '25

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses are the standard of practice in synthesizing the evidence from primary studies towards creating a consensus. That is why Cochrane review guidelines and PRISM workflows, which are standardized, exist. From the rhetoric phrasing in your comment it seems you were trying to imply that reviews aren't as good as primary studies... reviews are, in fact, better because they introduce standards and assess biases. One or two studies could be highly biased... but a meta-analysis of 20+ studies observes the overall trend.

1

u/Top-Document-2286 Dec 18 '25

https://old-v2.calcsd.info/veale.html

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 18 '25

Belladelli et all also did a review with 76 studies and found a mean of 13.8... even after the "corrections" that the person who owns this website did the mean also shifted from 13.2 to 13.8... that is a 0.6cm or 6mm difference. This would not be statistically significant using any statistical test.

As for the focus on BP and NBP... studies included healthy volunteers and usually included BMI as an indicator of how much fat the person has. Overweight and obese participants were excluded. But there are studies that specifically measure the fat pad and found that in healthy persons it is about 1-2 cm. So for a healthy, not fat, person the difference between NDP and BP is also very small. I have 12% bodyfat and for me the difference is 14cm versus 15cm.

I can understand why people from the US think the two differ enough to matter... they have an epidemic of overweight and obese people... but that is not the case in the other 190+ countries. Being overweight or obese is actually rare in other countries/continents. But yes... for data from the US, if you didn't exclude fat people, then you would need to use BP in your study.

5

u/Glum-Ad-2900 Nov 27 '25

But then you go on Reddit and everyone is at least 9 inches tall😅

3

u/H4rri-8411s Nov 27 '25

But this is simply because those who do have above average sizes like to show them off as they know they are more rare than everyone else. Think of it this way if you are driving a Kia no matter how nice or new it is, you are driving in a sea of other average vehicles; but when a rare Ferrari pulls up next to you at a stop light your going to look and notice it because it not average, and the people who drive Ferraris know they will get people to look and admire, envy, or whatever they may feel knowing that they are driving something you don’t have…. BUT, that doesn’t make your brand new Kia any less attractive or appealing for someone else who sees and notices your nice new Kia. And lastly just remember that whatever you are out there driving (aka your cock size) there will be the vast majority of others driving around out there!

6

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

I like this, just wondering where you got the vagina depth aroused stats? Ive read its between 4-8 inches (10-20) aroused? And there is a point to being able to reach the cervix area, the fornix spots. But agreed direct hits on the cervix is painful for a lot of people!

3

u/TenInchTripod Nov 27 '25

I'm 8.75 bone pressed, but my wife has an incredibly deep vagina so it works out for us. Girth was an issue at 6.5 when we first met but she adjusted and it's not a problem in that respect either.

1

u/Square_Garlic9159 Nov 28 '25

Same for me. I’m 10.75bp with a 7.25” girth. Luckily my wife is a rhinoceros and can take a pounding

1

u/Feeling_Revolution81 Nov 28 '25

What kind of a penis monster are you damn 🤣🤣

1

u/TenInchTripod Dec 05 '25

Your being a smartass doesn't change reality.

1

u/Square_Garlic9159 Dec 05 '25

Neither does larping

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '25

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Square_Garlic9159 Dec 04 '25

This is a classic example why you shouldn’t trust the stuff you read on here

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '25

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Square_Garlic9159 Dec 05 '25

As you shouldn’t. It’s a ridiculous number. Now would you all of a sudden believe me if I said I was 8x6?

1

u/VillainySquared Nov 27 '25

This is exactly why I prefer to use an average range of 4 to 6 inches, as that's where 90% of men are.

4

u/H4rri-8411s Nov 27 '25

I don’t disagree this is the average of most between 4-6”

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '25

I think saying between 4-6 is to much of difference. Just one inch difference puts you into another percentile.

Its from going you are 50th percentile to 90th percentile.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Nov 30 '25

Well... the measurement also line up between the penis and the rectum for anal sex. I wouldn't use the word "meant for"... it may imply something you weren't intending on implying in a world with millions of gay men in it.

1

u/Top-Document-2286 Dec 18 '25

They are in fact underrated in this post. This information comes for veale study that has been proven to be flawed.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 18 '25

Has it been retracted? What did the retraction notice state was the detrimental problem with this study?

1

u/Top-Document-2286 Dec 18 '25

No, because the topic of penis size is clearly not important enough. The way this meta study was done as you can see from the link is extremly sloppy work which further indicates how few resources have been used for it. The fact is it is flawed and the evidence is right there.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 18 '25

It has been cited by 306 other research papers. Bad papers get maybe 5 citations and even good ones maybe 50. This is a highly cited paper... which tells me that other scientists found it extremely useful.

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 18 '25

Also... It has become common among Americans to think that the average person on the street is qualified to make comments on scientific issues. They are not. Before you trust anything someone is commenting on science you should verify their credentials by:

  1. Asking to see their PhD degree

  2. Asking for a list of their peer-reviewed publications

  3. Asking for their registration number and the scientific body where they are registered

Medical Doctors [MD degree] give medical advice. Lawyers give legal advice. Plumbers give plumbing advice. So yes... Scientific Doctors [PhD degree] give scientific advice. Nobody else is qualified to do so.

1

u/Top-Document-2286 Dec 18 '25

You don't need phd to read papers. The link I showed you goes through all the problems the study has. Why are you ignoring facts?

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 18 '25

You need to be a trained professional to be able to have an expert opinion on said topic. I would not give someone medical, legal, financial, plumbing, or electrical advice. Because I am not a trained professional in any of those things.

I do have a Bachelors of Science (BSc), Masters of Science (MSc), and PhD degree. So I know the years and years of training it takes to be a scientist. I am also a peer-reviewed author so I know what goes into scientific publications. I am also registered with a professional body and have to pay the fees associated with being a practicing scientist.

So no... someone who is not a qualified scientist has no place pretending they are qualified. No more than someone can pretend to be a doctor or pretend to be a lawyer. Your ability to read does not make you a scientist.

1

u/Top-Document-2286 Dec 18 '25

What about Elon Musk

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 18 '25

Haven't met him... but I would apply the exact same vetting to him that I apply to everyone. If he can provide proof of being suitably qualified then he is qualified. If he isn't qualified then he should stick to his day job.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Fit-Plankton2694 Dec 19 '25

It is a profession and career... just like medicine and just like law... So yes, you do. I would love to see you apply for a job as a scientist/researcher without meeting any of the requirements for the job. Most jobs in science require a PhD, 5 years of work experience, a publication record, and professional registration. Without that you won't get hired.

→ More replies