Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Relationship between penile size and somatometric parameters in 2276 healthy young men


The aim of this study was to determine the average penile length of a group of healthy, young Turkish men, and to investigate the relationship between penile length and somatometric parameters in the same group. The flaccid and stretched length and circumference of the penis was measured in a group of 2276 physically normal, young men. The correlation between penile length and weight, height and body mass index (BMI) of the participants was determined by Pearson's analysis. The mean age of the participants was 21.1±3.1 (18–39) years. The mean flaccid, fully stretched and circumferential length of the participants' penises were 8.95±1.04, 13.98±1.58 and 8.89±0.86 cm, respectively. There was a significant relationship between all of these variables (P<0.01). Although weak positive correlations were found between the mean circumference length and BMI, there were no correlations between both the flaccid and stretched lengths and BMI. The penile length must be known to be able to determine the abnormal penile sizes and to make convenient decisions in the counseling and/or treatment of people with short penis concerns. Our study provides mean penile lengths in a large sample of healthy, young Turkish men, and the penile dimensions were found to be weakly correlated with somatometric parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Diseth TH, Bjordal R, Schultz A, Stange M, Emblem R . Somatic function, mental health and psychosocial functioning in 22 adolescents with bladder exstrophy and epispadias. J Urol 1998; 159: 1684–1689; discussion 1689–1690.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mondaini N, Ponchietti R, Gontero P, Muir GH, Natali A, Caldarera E et al. Penile length is normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14: 283–286.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sengezer M, Ozturk S, Deveci M . Accurate method for determining functional penile length in Turkish young men. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48: 381–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mehraban D, Salehi M, Zayeri F . Penile size and somatometric parameters among Iranian normal adult men. Int J Impot Res 2007; 19: 303–309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schneider T, Sperling H, Lummen G, Syllwasschy J, Rubben H . 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 2001; 57: 314–318.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aslan Y, Atan A, Omur Aydin A, Nalcacioglu V, Tuncel A, Kadioglu A . Penile length and somatometric parameters: a study in healthy young Turkish men. Asian J Androl 2010; 13: 339–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shah J, Christopher N . Can shoe size predict penile length? BJU Int 2002; 90: 586–587.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Spyropoulos E, Borousas D, Mavrikos S, Dellis A, Bourounis M, Athanasiadis S . Size of external genital organs and somatometric parameters among physically normal men younger than 40 years old. Urology 2002; 60: 485–489; discussion 490–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafe M, Di Loro F, Biscioni S, Masieri L . Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males. Eur Urol 2001; 39: 183–186.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghanem H, Shamloul R, Khodeir F, ElShafie H, Kaddah A, Ismail I . Structured management and counseling for patients with a complaint of a small penis. J Sex Med 2007; 4: 1322–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alter GJ . Augmentation phalloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 1995; 22: 887–902.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wylie KR, Eardley I . Penile size and the ‘small penis syndrome’. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1449–1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuzgunbay B, Turunç T, Güvel S, Özkardeş H . The average penile size of the Turkish men and their opinions about the penile size. Turk J Urol 2007; 33: 290–293.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Francken AB, van de Wiel HB, van Driel MF, Weijmar Schultz WC . What importance do women attribute to the size of the penis? Eur Urol 2002; 42: 426–431.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Son H, Lee H, Huh JS, Kim SW, Paick JS . Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men. Asian J Androl 2003; 5: 185–189.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vardi Y, Gruenwald I . The status of penile enhancement procedures. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 601–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Murtagh J . The ‘small’ penis syndrome. Aust Fam Physician 1989; 18: 218, 220.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li CY, Kayes O, Kell PD, Christopher N, Minhas S, Ralph DJ . Penile suspensory ligament division for penile augmentation: indications and results. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 729–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bondil P, Costa P, Daures JP, Louis JF, Navratil H . Clinical study of the longitudinal deformation of the flaccid penis and of its variations with aging. Eur Urol 1992; 21: 284–286.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW . Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation. J Urol 1996; 156: 995–997.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ting TH, Wu LL . Penile length of term newborn infants in multiracial Malaysia. Singapore Med J 2009; 50: 817–821.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gabrich PN, Vasconcelos JS, Damiao R, Silva EA . Penile anthropometry in Brazilian children and adolescents. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2007; 83: 441–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen J, Gefen A, Greenstein A, Matzkin H, Elad D . Predicting penile size during erection. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 328–333.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Loeb H . Harnrohrencapacitat und Tripperspritzen. Munch Med Wochenschr 1899; 46: 17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Burgu B, Aydogdu O, Tangal S, Soygur T . Circumcision: Pros and cons. Indian J Urol 2010; 26: 12–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith DP, Rickman C, Jerkins GR . Ultrasound evaluation of normal penile (corporeal) length in children. J Urol 1995; 154 (2 Part 2): 822–824.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinsey A, Pomeroy W, Martin C . Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male. WB Saunders Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ajmani ML, Jain SP, Saxena SK . Anthropometric study of male external genitalia of 320 healthy Nigerian adults. Anthropol Anz 1985; 43: 179–186.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Awwad Z, Abu-Hijleh M, Basri S, Shegam N, Murshidi M, Ajlouni K . Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2005; 17: 191–195.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Promodu K, Shanmughadas KV, Bhat S, Nair KR . Penile length and circumference: an Indian study. Int J Impot Res 2007; 19: 558–563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to H Söylemez.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Söylemez, H., Atar, M., Sancaktutar, A. et al. Relationship between penile size and somatometric parameters in 2276 healthy young men. Int J Impot Res 24, 126–129 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


This article is cited by


Quick links