Jesus fucking Christ, No.
I cannot deal with this shit again.
Can’t leave me in peace, can you?
Fuck you, Lhendup G. Bhutia, if that’s even a real name.
I didn’t want to come back, but you wouldn’t give me a choice, would you?
You had to go ahead and publish shit in a magazine I like without the least bit of background check, didn’t you?
Fine, let me do this shit all over again.
First, what caused this? Answer: This – Measuring the Indian Penis, a ‘feature’ in the latest issue of OPEN magazine, which was predictably followed by a smorgasbord of shit called “India Rising? Not so much” in Firstpost, which is so bad I’m not even going to link to it.
People, haven’t we been through this before? Did I not conclusively conclude that the Indian penis is definitely NOT an average of 4 inches? Sigh. Lhendup, please read. Someone, please point it out to Mr. Lhendup, who also seems to be the sole surviving relative of Mr. Phunsukh Wangdu.
I’m not being entirely fair. The meat of the article is quite interesting, i.e. the part excluding the first two paragraphs and the last three. This ‘meaty’ part is where he describes the sole(?) study undertaken in India to study penile lengths. Its quite nicely done. Go and read. I also found it extremely amusing that that Govt. of India is so hot-and-bothered about “frequent reports of condom slippage”. Right, because that’s among the Top 5% of problems faced by our country. Yes, I know, health implications, AIDS, population control, but really? Condom slippage is a problem? Did anyone at the Union Ministry of Health actually try putting on one or even *shudder* try out a few in practice? If condom slippage is a problem, you study the girth, not the length, right? Now, I’m no scientist and please prove me wrong, but it seems kinda obvious, doesn’t it? Also, the scientists completed the report and submitted it to the government, which (according to the article) did zilch about it. Taxpayers money at work people! (Also, in my totally unscientific opinion, the main problem is not condom slippage, but rather condom tears, the causes and solutions of which are completely, utterly different. You know what, let me give you the solution, with me being so magnanimous and all. It starts with ‘More’ and ends with ‘Foreplay’. You’re welcome.)
Also, did you know that the government regulates the size of the condoms made in India? Point 8 of Section R of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has this glorious requirement:
8. Dimensions. – (1) the length when unrolled (excluding teat) shall be not less than. -
(ii) 180 mm
(2) The width of a condom which laid flat and measured at any point within 85 mm from
the open end shall be,
(i) 49 ± 2mm for 170mm length
(iii) 52 ± 2mm for 180mm length.
I love India. They’ve even provided variety, look! Does this mean I can produce a 170 mm condom with a 100 cm teat? Questions, questions…
Again, I veer off the topic. Lhendup speaks to a few people in the project and its quite charming and I (having previously done research on the subject at the University of Google) was quite fascinated by this part.
No, what irked me was this part:
A well-known British scientist, Richard Lynn, recently published a study that lists and compares the average erect penis lengths of men in 113 countries. His findings, which appeared in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, range from the large sizes of the Congolese (which at an average 7.1 inches rank No 1) to the lengths of South and North Koreans, which average a little more than half that figure (at 3.8 inches, the smallest). Indians were part of the study too, but, with an average of just 4 inches, rank just above Koreans and Cambodians (3.9 inches), sharing the 110th spot with Thais (also 4 inches).
The source of Lynn’s data on Indian penis lengths is a little-known study called ‘Study on proper length and breadth specification for condoms based on anthropometric measurement’, which began with grand ambitions more than a decade ago and then slid into obscurity.
What Mr. Lhendup has done, is basically take material from some British newspapers, which first reported this study, and reprint them as gospel truth. And that too, without including the most critical part of those reports (IMHO) where other scientists say, “Cool study bro, too bad its on shit data.” Lhendup, for the sake of our penises, couldn’t you have included that?
Or what about the study itself? Its been published in a prestigious scientific journal, so of course it must be absolutely, positively correct, right? WRONG! If you had bothered to read the actual study and exhibited a bit of curiosity and maybe an hour of googling, maybe I wouldn’t have had to get all hot and bothered.
Here, knock yourselves out.
(You can get the pdf here.)
Now, Lynn’s study attempts to provide some kind of proof for a theory of race differences called r-K life history, which, after reading up on, seemed slightly racist to me, but hey, what do I know? Now in the introduction itself, Lynn has reported another great penis-measurer Rushton who has come up with these numbers in his 1987 report:
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.
That’s pretty damning, isn’t it? A clear-cut measurement? WRONG! Rushton has (according to this blog post) taken his ‘facts’ from a book “A French Army Surgeon” published in 1898 and which also happens to be the No. 1 reference in Lynn’s paper. That’s what we’re going on, people. A single, solitary Frenchman’s view of the world’s penises.
The book’s actual name is “Untrodden fields of anthropology : observations on the esoteric manners and customs of semi-civilized peoples”. That should probably give you a clue mister. Probably. Oh, and you can download that book here.
Let us move on, what other sources does Lynn have? Oh, one of the greatest scientific treatises of our time, the collection of stories, ‘One Thousand and One Nights’. What? What do you mean, its not a science journal? Fuck you. My penis longest. Wait, there’s photographic evidence too? Taken as recently as 1929, you say? I should probably admit defeat then, shouldn’t I?
Now from what I have researched (googled), it seems this Rushton penis-measuring was not taken kindly by other scientists because (a) they wanted to measure penises themselves and (b) it was a pile of horseshit. So Lynn feels for his man-crush Rushton and comes up with new evidence to tell us IN YOUR FACE SUCKERS. I <3 RUSHTON. What’s that, you ask?
First, is a work by Dr. Donald Templer, a self-published book which unfortunately I haven’t been able to find, which reviews (not measures) a number of studies on penis length (flaccid and stretched, strangely not erect). So basically, Templer has reviewed a few sources (25, as per this other fascinating study) and come up with his numbers. Two things about this. One, Both Templer and Lynn are members of American Renaissance, which sure as hell looks to me to be a racist organization, which kind of leads me to doubt his sources and two, if you believe the flaccid penis has any correlation with the eventual size of the erect penis, well, why don’t you come snuggle up to me naked so that I can test my virtue?
Lynn’s second source is this link:
. No, seriously. That’s his source. Haven’t we seen that somewhere before? Oh yes, when we fucked its basis here. (Linkbait). I shouldn’t have to do this again.
And third. Its this webpage here:
. Do you really want to know what that page is? It is just a tabular listing of the data of the second source. In fact, it is actually the source of the data in the map above. Circlejerk, anyone? And what are its sources? Go through them. You’ll find gems like: “The relation between sexual orientation and penile size”, “The Relationship Among Height, Penile Length, and Foot Size”, “Of fingers, toes and penises”, “Male teenagers copulate earlier in the USA”, “Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation”, ”Phallus in Wonderland”, “Why does so much ancient Greek art feature males with small genitalia?”, “Size does matter (to gays)” and my joint-favourites: “Research says erect gay penises are bigger” and “The size of things to come”. The last one’s a doozy.
Basically, the study is shite. And this humongous pile of crap was actually published in a scientific journal. Astounding.
That all this is reported and given so much publicity without a second thought, is evidence that our baser instincts take precedence over all others. (I’m rambling, bear with me.)
Now the second part of my beef with the OPEN article. The last three paragraphs simply regurgitate the conclusions/findings of the study. Brother, in the flow of the article you write this, in this order:
1. Average Indian penis size according to Lynn = 4 inches
2. Average Indian penis size according to the only doctor of the study which formed the basis of Lynn’s report who was willing to go on record = 4.7 inches (sample size: 200 people)
3. Average Indian (Keralian) penis size according to an independent study = 5.08 inches (sample size: 93 people)
While reviewing this article, did you not think there was anything fishy about this? I mean, COME ON. Kerala people have 5-inch penises. We’re short, dark and stocky. If we go around with 5-inch cocks, can you imagine what the Jats and Kashmiris are lugging around? Our average can only go up right? We can blame Mumbai’s low average on Bangladeshi immigrants. They’re shorter than us anyway.
Here, read this: The Penile Economics of Ethnicity. It gives a far less belligerent and far more nuanced rebuttal of Rushton’s and Lynn’s theories than what I could attempt. Long story short (and I’m sensationalizing here), there exists actual hard data to suggest that Indian penises might actually be longer than American ones. Go suck on that RushLynn.
LGBt, I get you, bro. You saw that article, thought ‘Hey, how did anyone actually come up with that number?’, then saw the source and BOOM!, you dug up the (fascinating) story of how that study came to be in the first place and that’s why you’re a journalist and you get these stories. Its just that, couldn’t you have been a bit more sensitive towards my penis? He has feelings too.
People have their peeves. This is mine. Yes, it’s childish and downright insecure to go up in arms whenever someone flashes around these numbers. But you know what bugs me? Deep down, most Indian guys have accepted that their penises (penii?) are smaller than their western or african counterparts. No. They’re not. I can’t go around dropping my trousers everytime someone suggests that Indian men (indirectly: me) have a small penis. Which we (and indirectly: I) do not. Can you imagine the brouhaha if someone came up with a study that says Indian women have spacious vaginas? Come to think of it, a French guy did. Oh wait, that book wouldn’t be “Untrodden fields of anthropology : observations on the esoteric manners and customs of semi-civilized peoples”, would it? Oh yes, it would. That never caught on. Indian men, small penis, did.
Has any other organ been so ridiculed as the penis? Vaginas are untouchable, as the ‘Clean & Dry’ and ’18 Again’ makers found out. This reverse-discrimination has to be stopped. (Fuck, I just realized I sound like a brainless internet zombie ranter. I’ll stop here.)
All I have to say is: Rise up, fellow countrymen.