Furthermore and I quote directly from Wikipedia:
"Results suggested that most women preferred a penis only slightly larger than average size, that their preference differs slightly across different types of relationships, and that they found penis size to be relatively unimportant in a partner, less important than cooking skills or dress, and only more important than eye color and car type."
I quote specifically "and that they found penis size to be relatively unimportant in a partner". Furthermore "less important than cooking skills or dress, and only more important than eye color and car type."
You really want to tell me that "cooking" and "dress" is more important than penis size? It is now clearly evident that they went in with a bias. Now it clearly shows and reveals how bad this study is.
@St3v3Cel
1. “Preferred a penis only slightly larger than average”
- The study actually just reported the mean of the selections (6.3–6.4 in) without showing the distribution.
- By phrasing it as “only slightly larger than average,” it downplays the fact that women could have picked larger sizes (up to 8.5 in) — a subtle minimization of bigger-is-better preference.
- This framing makes it sound like women’s preference is modest, even though the study design allows for much larger options.
2. “Preference differs slightly across different types of relationships”
- In reality, the difference between long-term and one-time partner preference was tiny (0.1 in).
- Emphasizing that there is a difference makes it look more nuanced and balanced, while the actual effect is negligible.
3. “Penis size relatively unimportant in a partner…”
- This statement reflects a psychological interpretation, not a direct measurement of sexual attraction.
- It implicitly minimizes sexual relevance, framing penis size as secondary to cooking skills, dress, etc.
- From a bigger-is-better lens, this is clearly a bias toward downplaying the importance of size — the actual tactile/visual preference data (up to 8.5 in models) is ignored in favor of social ranking.
4. Overall effect
- The Wikipedia phrasing reinforces a conservative, modest interpretation, giving the impression that women don’t care much about size.
- In reality:
- The study does not show how many women picked 7–8.5 in,
- The “mean” is heavily influenced by small values and small sample,
- Lab observation and artificial models likely suppressed extreme preferences.
Bottom line:
The Wikipedia summary reflects a
bias toward minimizing penis size importance and female preference for larger sizes — it interprets averages as universal preference and downplays the upper end that the experimental design actually allowed.
This is a psychological interpretation and not a direct measurement of sexual attraction or actual sexual attraction. This is why this was published in psychology. Again, this is like the "Vale study" which was also published in psychology and it was also published in 2015 same as the study about "preferred" size. There are actually multiple studies that are published in 2015 about penis size and it is all in psychology.
Psychology/Behavioral Context
Even though it’s published in a urology journal (
BJU International),
the authors’ backgrounds are largely in psychology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences — several are affiliated with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience in London.
There are other 2015 papers tied to these researchers in psychology or psychiatry that relate to penis size concerns, such as those exploring:
- Body dysmorphic disorder regarding penis size, published in Sexual Medicine.
- Phenomenology of men with penis size anxiety, published in Body Image.
They try to spin it and make it about "body dismorphic disorder". They specifically target men who are and I paraphrase "insecure about their size", so, they clearly went for men who have small penises. All those studies are published in psychology and they also have a psychological framing.
This clearly shows how bad this study is.
