Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatmenthttp://sax.sagepub.com/ The Relationships Among Height, Penile Length, and Foot Size Kerry Siminoski and Jerald Bain Sex Abuse 1993 6: 231 DOI: 10.1177/107906329300600305 The online version of this article can be found at: http://sax.sagepub.com/content/6/3/231 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Additional services and information for Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sax.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sax.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://sax.sagepub.com/content/6/3/231.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1993 What is This? Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON on December 30, 2012 THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG HEIGHT. Canada & Jerald Bain. 2012 . FRCPC Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism Mount Sinai Hospital & The Toronto Hospital Uniuersity of Toronto Toronto. PENILE LENGTH.com at UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON on December 30.sagepub. MD. Canada Downloaded from sax. AND FOOT SIZE Kerry Siminoski. University of Alberta Divison Edmonton. MD. BSc Phm. FRCPC of Endocrinology and Metabolism Department of Medicine. MSc. Downloaded from sax. AnnaLs of Sex Research. penile length.. and foot size. The relattonships among height. K. Height and stretched penile length were measured. 63 normally virilized men were studied.ABSTRACT To determine whether "folk myths" regarding the relationships of penile size body height and foot size have any basis in fact. 231-235. 2012 . & Bain. J.sagepub. Height and foot size would not serve as practical estimators of penis length. to Siminoski. (1993). shoe size was recorded and converted to foot length. 6.com at UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON on December 30. but with weak correlation coefficients. Penile length was found to be statistically related to both body height and foot length. 05). height was 174. which reported penile dimensions and body height (Loeb. Also. Depending on the underlying hypothesis. 1980. 1971). To scientifically address this issue. Shoe size was recorded and converted to length from a standard North American Shoe store scale. overall body height and foot length.4 cm ( S. 1971). and art of many cultures (Janda & Klenke-Hamel. and serum testosterone and gonadotropin levels) were examined. 1973. nose. Schonfeld & Beebe.7 cm.0 to 13. or feet). 1942).D. 2012 . penile circumference. McCary. McCary.4 to Downloaded from sax. many conceptions regarding the male genitalia have become incorporated into the common folklore (Johnson & Belzer. RESULTS The average 29. 1899).44 between penile length and body height (p < 0.D. Total body height was measured. or by gauging the size of another of his appendages (such as his earlobes. From his raw data one can calculate a correlation of r = 0.233 The penis has figured prominently in the myths. the penis is assumed to correlate either directly or inversely with the dimensions of one of these other body parts. Equations for relationships were determined using least-squares linear regression.6 (S. and extrapolating to penile length (Masters & Johnson.sagepub. legends.01). METHOD Research . and average foot length was 26. ’ Participants & Procedure on Sixty-three normally virilized males (normal pubertal history. (S. published in 1899. The specificity of the relationship is evidenced by the absence of a significant correlation in Loeb’s data between penile circumference or urethral volume with body height (p > 0. 1980. with a range from 6. age did not correlate with any of the other variables Loeb examined.D. average penis length was 9. virilization physical examination.4) years. One pertinent study was that of Heinrich Loeb. thumbs. we studied the relationships among penis length and two of these anatomic variables. Masters & Johnson.5 em. religion. = 12. penile length. Consequently. and urethral volume. 1973. 1980). = 8. Average age was 39. One of the more prevalent beliefs involves the theory that the size of a man’s penis may be estimated indirectly by assessing overall body size. Masters & Johnson.D.4 an.5 cm (S. = 1. along with stretched penile length (Schonfeld.4 cm).com at UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON on December 30. Johnson & Belzer. 1980. including body height. with a range from 24. = 1.0 cm) with a range from 157 to 194 cm. 1943. with a range from 27 to 71.1 cm). 10-6).05). Schonfeld. Correlations of height. 1943). and was larger than body height (r Downloaded from sax. 1987)..sagepub.66.g. confirming our in another population. with a similar correlation of r 0. similar to other published data (e. Foot Size And Age length and body height (Table 1) were moderately correlated (r 0.2 cm. as with our data. however. and penis length with age were not statistically significant (p > 0. The mean penile length in our study was.5 to 18 cm. although the correlation was relatively weak (r 0. DISCUSSION The data of Loeb (1899) demonstrated a correlation between penile length and = 0. The specificity finding of the relationship is evidenced by the absence of a significant correlation in Loeb’s data between penile circumference or urethral volume with body height (p > 0. or may be related to variation in the degree of stretching force. p < 0.26.2 cm and a 95% range from 10. The differences between these studies may reflect intrinsic population variability. Fujieda and Matsuura. age did not correlate with any of the other variables. 2012 . foot length. Our study produced a mean stretched penile length of 9. with a 95% range from 6. widely separated in time (Table 1). Foot = = = .6 to 12.01) similar to results of our study.44. p < .05). The stretched penile lengths observed in our study were somewhat smaller than those reported in the seminal studies of Schonfeld (Schonfeld and Beebe. Also. Penis length had a statistically significant relationship to height.234 Table 1 Correlaation of Penis SIze With Height.com at UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON on December 30.05). He reported a mean value of 13.27 (p < 0.4 cm. 1942.02). P < 0. The relationship between penis length and foot length was also statistically significant. Chaurasia. Human sexuality. (1985).H. Human sexual behaviour and sex education. Human sexual response. M. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. genitalia Downloaded from sax. N.7 cm) and Ajmani. S. edition.L. Journal of Urology. & Johnson. 2012 . Johnson. American Journal Schonfeld. (1980). Acta Paediatrica Japonica. London: Lea and Munchen Medizinische Masters. K. 759-777. (1971).P.G. (1942). Primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Our data and an analysis of the data of Loeb confirm these hypotheses but offer only weak support..com at UNIV OF TEXAS ARLINGTON on December 30.H.G. 1016-1019 pp..2 to 11. New York: 1-36. New York: Van Nostrad.A. & Beebe.235 recently reported for flaccid penises. K. Janda. 43. Regardless. pp. 1971). most values REFERENCES Ajmani. (1974).1 to 9. pp. T. indicate that there is no practical utility in predicting penis size from foot size or height. 210-216. Harnrohrencapacitat und Tripperspritzen.D. 325-328.B.E.W. 48. 191-192. H. & Saxena. and Saxena ( 1985) found a range of 5.2 cm) (Farkas.R. & Co. (1943).. E. V. B. II. The relatively low correlation coefficients. so any differences between studies do not affect the interpretation of the size relationships in our analysis. although statisitcally significant.5 cm (mean 7. Wochenschrift. Jain. Diseases of Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. For example. Jain. all measurements were made by one of us (JB) using a standard technique. 31-86. 3rd Fiberger. 220-223. Basic morphological data of external genitals in 177 healthy central European men. Change of penile length. Anthropdogischer Anzeiger. & Belzer. (1899). McCary. Anthropologischer Anzeiger. G. Farkas. Anthropological data of male external genitals in central Indian healthy adults. W. McCary.K. W. J. Loeb.. (1973). (1987). (1980). & Matsuura.sagepub. Chaurasia and Singh (1974) found a range of 6. 34. Two of the more common popular sexual presumptions are that penis length may be predicted by observing a man’s foot size or his height (Masters and Johnson. Growth and measurement in the male genitalia from birth to adolescence.2 cm (mean 7.0 to 9. 1980. of Children.E. 535-549. Farkas found a 95% range for flaccid penises of 5. Anthropometric study of male external genitalia of 320 healthy Nigerians. in the male Schonfeld. Normal growth and variations from birth to maturity. L. Sexual myths and fallacies. Fujieda. 46.2 cm) . W. 34. & Klenke-Hamel. 179-186. 19. 65.2 cm (mean 8. S.A. & Singh. 1976). (1976). L. Brown. Boston: Little.L. W. pp 15-40.
Report "The Relationships Among Height, Penile Length, and Foot Size"