Sociocultural Influences on Men’s Penis Size Perceptions and Decisions to Undergo Penile Augmentation: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background An increasing number of men, dissatisfied with their penises, are seeking cosmetic procedures to enhance their penis size. However, little is known about the social and cultural factors that influence men to consider these procedures. Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the sociocultural factors affecting men’s attitudes toward their penis size as well as their decisions to undergo penile augmentation. Methods One-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted with 6 adult men who had previously undergone a penile augmentation. The men were asked about the sociocultural factors that they thought contributed to dissatisfaction with their penis size, and their motivations for having penile augmentation. All interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were analyzed through the use of thematic analysis. Results Three main themes emerged from the interviews, namely “influence of pornography,” “comparison with peers,” and “indirect appearance-related teasing.” The men noted that the large penises of male actors in pornography had skewed their perception of normal penis size. All men had compared their penises with those of their peers, usually in the locker room, and often felt their own penis was smaller as a result. None of the participants had received direct negative comments about their penis size, but were aware that having a small penis was a source of mockery from exposure to jokes on mainstream media sources. Conclusions These new insights into the sociocultural factors, namely media and peers, that influence men’s desire for penile augmentation may assist clinicians in enhancing their communication with prospective patients.

Average-Size Erect Penis: Fiction, Fact, and the Need for Counseling

“…Studies of penis length that relied on self-reports There are several influences on men's beliefs about penis size. These include a focus on the penis throughout history as the symbol of masculinity (Friedman, 2001), the popular media (Lehman, 1993;Owen & Campbell, 2018), pornography and erotic literature with their emphasis on large penises (Brennan, 2018;Cranney, 2015;Mondaini et al, 2002;Sharp & Oates, 2019;Zilbergeld, 1978, pp. 21-31), and in recent years, science.…”

Associations between pornography exposure, body image and sexual body image: A systematic review

“…Four studies used qualitative methodologies (Dawson et al, 2020; Leickly et al, 2017; Mattebo et al, 2012; Sharp and Oates, 2019). In these studies, data was obtained during workshops using a semi-structured format (Dawson et al, 2020), semi-structured interviews (Leickly et al, 2017; Sharp and Oates, 2019), and focus group interviews (Mattebo et al, 2012). Two studies used a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology with closed-ended and open-ended questions (Davis et al, 2019; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019).…”

“…The studies included a total of 29,881 participants. Seven studies included only females (Davis et al, 2019; Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019; Sharp et al, 2016; Truong et al, 2017; Tylka and Calogero, 2019; Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2014), 11 only included males (Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Griffiths et al, 2018; Kvalem et al, 2016; Leickly et al, 2017; Morrison et al, 2007; O’Brien et al, 2015; Prokop, 2016; Sevic et al, 2020; Sharp and Oates, 2019; Tylka, 2015; Whitfield et al, 2018), and the remaining eight contained mixed gender samples (Albright, 2008; Cranney, 2015; Dawson et al, 2020; Doornwaard et al, 2014; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Mattebo et al, 2012; Peter and Valkenburg, 2014; Vogels, 2019).…”

“…Adolescents were the target population in four studies (Doornwaard et al, 2014; Sevic et al, 2020; O’Brien et al, 2015; Mattebo et al, 2012), young adults or college students were included in seven studies (Davis et al, 2019; Dawson et al, 2020; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Prokop, 2016; Tylka, 2015; Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2014; Vogels, 2019), and adults were studied in 14 studies (Albright, 2008; Cranney, 2015; Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Griffiths et al, 2018; Kvalem et al, 2016; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019; Leickly et al, 2017; Morrison et al, 2007; Sharp et al, 2016; Sharp and Oates, 2019; Truong et al, 2017; Tylka and Calogero, 2019; Whitfield et al, 2018). One study included adolescents, young adults, and adults (Peter and Valkenburg, 2014).…”

“…Heterogeneity was also observed in the conceptualization of existing pornography modalities. While some studies did not specify any type of modality (Dawson et al, 2020; Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019; Leickly et al, 2017; O’Brien et al, 2015; Sevic et al, 2020; Sharp and Oates, 2019; Truong et al, 2017; Tylka and Calogero, 2019), others focused exclusively on online pornography (Cranney, 2015; Doornwaard et al, 2014), and others included a variety of modalities: mobile phone, tablet, computer, PDA, television, book or magazine, DVD, Internet streaming, downloads, photographs, films (Albright, 2008; Davis et al, 2019; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Kvalem et al, 2016; Morrison et al, 2007; Prokop, 2016; Sharp et al, 2016; Tylka, 2015; Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2014; Vogels, 2019; Whitfield et al, 2018) (see Table S1).…”