Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Growers versus showers: a meaningful (or useful) distinction?

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 30, pages 355–356 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Yafi et al. have conducted a study that will be of great interest to the lay community and also of import to practicing urologists who routinely encounter patients with concerns about the appearance of their phallus [1]. In one study 14% of men expressed dissatisfaction with their genitals with flaccid penile length being the most common source of dissatisfaction [2]. The concerns of such men tend to be the perception that their penis is small, or at least smaller than the penises of other men.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Yafi FA, Alzeri L, McCaslin IR, Libby RP, Sangkum P, Sikka SC, et al. Grower or shower? Predictors of change in penile length from the flaccid to erect state. Int J Impot Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0053-3

  2. Gaither TW, Allen IE, Osterberg EC, Alwal A, Harris CR, Breyer BN. Characterization of genital dissatisfaction in a national sample of U.S. men. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:2123–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA. Erect penile length and circumference dimensions of 1,661 sexually active men in the United States. J Sex Med. 2014;11:93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Veale D, Miles S, Bramley S, Muir G, Hodsoll J. Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men. BJU Int. 2015;115:978–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mautz BS, Wong BB, Peters RA, Jennions MD. Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness. Proc Natl Acad Sci Usa. 2013;110:6925–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eisenman R. Penis size: survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. BMC Women’s Health. 2001;1:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;42:426–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Prause N, Park J, Leung S, Miller G. Women’s preferences for penis size: a new research method using selection among 3D models. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grov C, Parsons JT, Bimbi DS. The association between penis size and sexual health among men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:788–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moskowitz DA, Hart TA. The influence of physical body traits and masculinity on anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40:835–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, USA

    Alan W. Shindel

Authors
  1. Alan W. Shindel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan W. Shindel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

AWS was an employee and equity holder with Genomic Health Inc until August 23 2017. No COI relevant to this manuscript within the past 12 months.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shindel, A.W. Growers versus showers: a meaningful (or useful) distinction?. Int J Impot Res 30, 355–356 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0070-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0070-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links