Rushton and genital size: one more time

J. Philippe Rushton asserts [1]:
Orientals are the most K, Blacks are the most r, and Whites fall in between. Being more r means: [. . .] more developed primary sexual characteristics (size of penis, vagina, testes, ovaries)
Rushton apparently has many convinced the above assertions are ironclad facts. They are not. Despite Rushton's sometimes selective presentation of evidence, what data exist (on "size of penis, vagina, testes") fail to consistently align with Rushton's Asian < White < African framework.

Penis size

Rushton claims [2]:

We averaged the ethnographic data on erect penis and found the means to approximate:
Orientals, 4 to 5.5 in. in length and 1.25 in. in diameter;
Caucasians, 5.5 to 6 in. in length and 1.5 in. in diameter;
blacks, 6.25 to 8 in. in length and 2 in. in diameter.
The numbers above are apparently lifted directly (or indirectly via Coon's Racial Adaptations) from a book by "A French Army Surgeon" ("Jacobus X" / Jacobus Sutor) published in 1898 (so much for "averages" of "the ethnographic data"; Rushton cites "A French Army Surgeon" as merely an "e.g." of "the ethnographic record", but Rushton's "ethnographic record" is apparently limited to the supposed observations of a single 19th-century individual).

The numbers given for blacks (ranging up to "8 in. in length" for population means) are implausible on their face, and no modern study of blacks comes close to supporting anything but the very low end of that suggested range.

A study of Nigerians (n=115) finds "mean [stretched] penile length was 13.37 cm [5.26 inches] with a median of 13 cm" [3]. Another study, on 320 Nigerians, finds "average [presumably flaccid] length of the penis (81.6 +/- 0.94 mm); circumference of the penis (88.3 +/- 0.02 mm)" [4].

The Kinsey data, which may be less than ideal but which are cited by Rushton both directly and indirectly, suggest any difference in mean penile dimensions between black and white men in America is measurable in fractions of an inch:
White males had an average flaccid penis length of 4.0 inches, whereas the average black male's detumescent member measured 4.3 inches. But when erect, the average white penis was 6.2 inches long, whereas the average black's was 6.3 inches--still longer, but not by much. (Average circumference for whites was 3.7 inches; for blacks, 3.8.)

When Rushton cites WHO condom standards in support of his theory, he is merely indirectly referencing the Kinsey data (plus a sample from Thailand, and one from Australia). WHO did no original research. Their sole "African" sample is the American black sample from Kinsey [7].

[Update: Rushton claims the WHO specify three condom sizes [1]:
The World Health Organization Guidelines specify a 49-mm-width condom for Asia, a 52-mm-width for North America and Europe, and a 53-mm-width for Africa.
I'd taken Rushton at his word here and had not bothered to check his WHO claim beyond determining that WHO did no original research on the subject (as stated above). In reality, it's clear from the guidelines that WHO specify exactly two widths [7]:
WHO specifies a width of 49 mm or 53 mm with a tolerance of ±2 for individual condoms and ±1 for the average of the lot.
The WHO don't make distinctions among Europe, Africa, and Asia, but between Asia and everyone else [7]:
Condoms are made in various widths. Based on studies in Australia, Thailand and the USA, and the experience of major agencies, the wider condoms (flat width 52-55 mm) will be preferred in Australia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and North America, and the narrower condoms (47-51 mm) will be preferred in several Asian countries (see Appendix III). Other widths are also made for small specialized markets.
Note: the ranges encompass tolerances in the specification; only two distinct widths are specified.]

Testes size

Rushton reviews most of the evidence of which I'm aware in his 1987 paper [2]:
Measurements taken from living subjects as well as those at autopsy, show the size of testes is twofold lower in Asian men than Europeans (9 g vs 21 g), a difference too large to be accounted for entirely in terms of body size (Diamond, 1986; Short, 1984). [. . .] Contrary to the general trend, Freeman (1934) observed that, at autopsy, American blacks had less heavy testes than American whites (13g vs 15g). [. . .] Subsequently Daniel, Fienstein, Howard-Peebles, and Baxley (1982) found no black-white difference in testicular volume among American adolescents, while Ajmani, Jain, and Saxena (1985) found larger scrotal circumference in Nigerians than Europeans (212.6 mm vs 195.1 mm or 8.37 in. vs 7.68 in.)
Strangely, by 2000, Rushton seems to have grown somewhat amnesiac [1]:
Race differences in testicle size have also been measured (Asians = 9 grams, Europeans = 21 g). This is not just because Europeans have a slightly larger body size. The difference is too large. A 1989 article in Nature, the leading British science magazine, said that the difference in testicle size could mean that Whites make two times as many sperm per day as do Orientals. So far, we have no information on the relative size of Blacks.
Rushton also conveniently ignores "A French Army Surgeon" where the latter's claim fails to line up with the former's theory:
In no branch of the human race are the male organs more developed than in the African Negro. I am speaking of the penis only and not of the testicles, which are often smaller than those of the majority of Europeans.

Vaginal size

Rushton claims (apparently again relying on "A French Army Surgeon"):
Women were proportionate to men, with Orientals having smaller vaginas and blacks larger ones, relative to Caucasians.
Modern studies fail to bear out this claim, which tends to further reduce the credibility of Rushton's 19th-century source. One study using MRI finds "[r]ace was not associated with any differences in measurements of vaginal dimensions" [5]. A different study finds [6]:
posterior cast length is significantly longer, anterior cast length is significantly shorter and cast width is significantly larger in Hispanics than in the other two groups and (2) the Caucasian introitus is significantly greater than that of the Afro-American subject.
Nor do the "Afro-American" subjects have deeper vaginas: "[a]verage rod lengths for Caucasians and Afro-Americans were 11.51 and 11.18 cm [. . .] significantly different as measured by t test" [6].

References

[1] Race, Evolution, and Behavior 2nd Special Abridged Edition (pdf)

[2] Rushton, J.P. & Bogaert, A.F. (1987) Race differences in sexual behavior: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 21(4): pp. 536-7 (link)

[3] Orakwe JC et al. Can physique and gluteal size predict penile length in adult Nigerian men? West Afr J Med. 2006 Jul-Sep;25(3):223-5. (link)

[4] Ajmani ML et al. Anthropometric study of male external genitalia of 320 healthy Nigerian adults. Anthropol Anz. 1985 Jun;43(2):179-86. (link)

[5] Barnhart KT et al. Baseline dimensions of the human vagina. Hum Reprod. 2006 Jun;21(6):1618-22. Epub 2006 Feb 14. (link)

[6] Pendergrass PB et al. Comparison of vaginal shapes in Afro-American, caucasian and hispanic women as seen with vinyl polysiloxane casting. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2000;50(1):54-9. (link)

[7] WHO Global Programme on AIDS. Specification and Guidelines for Condom Procurement. Appendix VII, Regional or Ethnic Differences in Erect Penis Size. Geneva: WHO, 1995. (pdf)

10 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vern Buchanan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

It has been my experience that African American women have smaller, tighter and more pleasurable vaginas than do white women and is one of the reasons I prefer them to whites as sexual partners.

As far as the male's penis size is concerned, the largest organs that I have personally witnessed have been mostly on white men, ranging in size between a legitimate 9" and 12".

This, however, does not mean that the photographs of huge black penises that I have looked at were in any way doctored.

After perusing several, sometimes half-baked, studies and my own experiences, I have concluded that the largest penises are probably owned by blacks and the smallest penises are, for the most part, owned by whites, most men of both races fall somewhere in the statistical middle.

Since I have no experience with Asians I have no idea if they are truly smaller than the other two races or not.

Anonymous said...

Some things dont even need a research paper.Look at porn,and you will notice the disproportionately large penis size of the most virile blacks versus those of other races.

Anonymous said...

"I’d argue that the last piece of evidence is contingent on the first: we see the outliers in porn strictly because the myth exists. The presence of those outliers doesn’t support the evidence for the myth. It has to be thrown out of court.

“So, where do men get the idea they’re too small? “From pornography,” explains Richard Pacheco, a porn star of the 1970s, now retired. “The men in porn are a self-selecting group. Only the guys with the biggest dicks audition. And producers pick the guys who are largest.” “

This affects black men most for two reasons. First, if you’re a black man, because you’ve likely bought into the Myth just like everyone else, you’re probably only going to even think about a career in porn if you’re seriously packing. None of this 8 inch bullshit. So black male pornstars exhibit an even greater self-selection bias than white male pornstars who also self-select for size. There’s also the decision of the gatekeepers to porn stardom: producers and directors. If they believe the myth, this adds even more upward pressure on black men’s penis size in the industry. There is an additional “Myth factor” that forces black men to have to stack up even more than they would without such a myth. In an industry that favors extremity over normalcy, a black man has to have a bigger penis that most white male pornstars to be considered marketable."

"And even if that argument doesn’t hold, there is the fact that the world-record holder for this category happens to be a white guy from New York."

Jonah Falcon
"In early 2006, he appeared in a documentary by UK Channel 4 called "The World's Biggest Penis."[4] His large size also led him to several appearances on the Howard Stern radio program.[2]

Rolling Stone reports Falcon's penis as 9.5 inches (24 cm) in length when flaccid and 13.5 inches (34 cm) in length when erect.[1]"

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, if you’ve read my blog more than once or twice, you know I direct for Blacks On Blondes. And I’ve been on most sets as either a director or second cameraman since late ‘02. And in January of ‘03 we started rolling on Spring Thomas, and I shot and booked every one of those scenes. So, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret.

Black dudes, as a whole, are not any larger than white dudes.

I’m going to go as far as calling this fact. But before we go there, let’s take a look at the graph I ripped off from someone else’s website. I know it doesn’t take race into consideration, but it’s pretty accurate. It’s accurate cause it’s based on Alfred Kinsey’s studies. He found, after measuring something like 10,000 dicks from 1938 to 1963, that they’re usually 5 – 6 inches long.

Some are smaller, some are bigger.

(Know what else he found out? 92% of all those dudes reported they beat it, while only 62% of the ladies admitted to rubbing one out. Of all those ladies, over 80% rubbed it out using both labia and clitoral stimulation.)

Back to pee-pees: According to Gebhard and Johnson (1979), the average erect penis of males in the US is 5-7 inches and the average circumference is 4-6 inches. I only wish Gebhard and Johnson would have gone to Africa and researched dick size, cause I think they woulda found out the same thing I already know.

While booking the early Spring Thomas interracial sex movies, I actually placed an ad in Adult Friend Finder. I wasn’t shooting in Los Angeles then, but I still had to find black dudes…which I did.

Guess what?

5 to 7 inches.

We found one hung dude – Slim – and that’s about it.

And honestly, check out the Los Angeles talent pool. Once you get beyond the freaks of nature (Mandingo, Jack Napier, Shane Diesel, and Boz The Animal)…well, we’re back to 5 to 7 inches.

In fact, I can’t book a lot of the black guys running around Los Angeles calling themselves male talent, especially for Blacks On Blondes, cause The Producer is very picky about size, and, well, look back up at the chart and see what happens to the blue lines once you get past 7 inches.

I know, I know…I sound like a small-dicked, frustrated white boy.

But I’m not. Really. Just ask Kinsey."

infinityshock said...

the largest verifiable wang on record belongs to a white guy.

Anonymous said...

When people watch videos like this following,they never remember that myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SU_rp9ttNg&feature=related


That is Ethiopia,country at south of Arabia,Donga's warriors images,and I didn't see a monster like the black men in the porn movies.Most of their penises are like a fingers...XD

but...
That tribes are from the East of Africa,and afroamericans come from the West of that continent...¿May exist a difference?

My english sucks!!

Cordiales saludos.

Anonymous said...

I'm white. I have both targe testicals and a larger penis (8 inches). I have had one asian woman look at it and say "NO".

Caucasian women, are greedy, while they wont say "NO" some don't want seconds. I settles on one that found me "Just right." she is taller than I am and that may have somthig to do with it. I can live with it.

ShannonH said...

Excellent article - it's amazing that so much of the Rushton (and Richard Lynn) papers that get cited hundreds of times by the media are based on nothing. It's like scientists are so afraid of measuring actual penises that they just keep referring to each other over and over.
It goes like:
The words of some 1898 racist -> old scholarly paper -> modern study 1 -> modern study 2 -> modern study 3 -> modern study 4, etc.
all referencing each other but if you dig, it leads back to nothing. Problem is, the more it gets passed around, the more you'll see claims that these numbers are valid because so many other studies support them.
The scariest part is, especially in Lynn's case, this is often used to justify eurocentric eugenics, where 'whites' are the most balanced (not too sex obsessed, not too disinterested.)
It's a topic that's treated lightheartedly in the media, but has such frightening implications.