The penis size, in human history, have always been considered a symbol of virility and represent, even in the modern collective imagination, the most tangible expression of man’s sexual power. As proof of this, a recent study by Murat Gül and collaborators analyzed how the representation of the male nude has changed from the Renaissance to today, in which the size of the penis (evaluated objectively in relation to the size of the ear or nose) has increased over time, especially since the 20th century. Although it is more probable that this phenomenon represents the expression of the changes in socio-cultural factors that have occurred over the centuries and the consequent different subjective perception of the size of the penis, linked to cultural rather than biological factors, it cannot be excluded that there is something else.
In this regard, the Italian study by Belladelli and collaborators, recently published in The World Journal of Men’s Health, investigated, through the meta-analysis of 75 different studies conducted between 1942 and 2022, geographic and temporal trends in penis size, involving 55,761 men (aged 18-86) from around the world. The study, which only considered measurements rigorously carried out by a doctor (therefore excluding studies in which the measurements were reported by the patient), highlighted a singular tendency to increase in size of the erect penis over several decades, which has reached 24% over the past 29 years. The biological motivations behind this observation are unclear. On the one hand, it might reflect the advance of puberty that has been observed in recent years, the latter linked to the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of the population after the mid-twentieth century. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that exposure to pollutants with hormonal action present in the environment (the so-called “endocrine disruptors”), which can also occur in the prenatal period, may play a role in this phenomenon, as suggested by the recently increased incidence of gonadal pathologies such as testicular cancer, infertility and congenital malformations. It is the opinion of the authors, however acceptable, that further studies are conducted to highlight these potential negative aspects.
In addition, they have emerged the limits of penis measurement in flaccid conditions (whether measured in basal or “stretched” conditions), conditioned by numerous factors related to the patient (including age) and the operator (e.g. the force applied to “stretch” the penis) . Furthermore, the measurement of the penis in spontaneous erection (not pharmacologically stimulated) appears difficult to apply. It therefore emerges that the measurement of the erect penis after pharmacological stimulation represents the best alternative, when it is necessary to conduct this type of assessment.
In conclusion, the results of this study highlight an unsuspected trend towards an increase in the size of the penis observed in the last decades which appears worthy of further study and possible public health interventions. Collaterally, it emerges that the measurement of the penis in a flaccid condition, however practical, is not very reproducible and should not be considered for study purposes.