P3ni$ Width And Length, Which One Matters The Most in $3x



Does the size of the male p3ni$, in terms of length or width, make a difference in female $3xual satisfaction?


To study the effect of p3ni$ width vs. length on female $3xual satisfaction, 50 $3xually active female undergraduate students were asked which felt better, i. e., was p3ni$ width or length more important for their $3xual satisfaction.


None reported they did not know, or that width and length were equally satisfying. A large majority, 45 of 50, reported width was more important (p < .001).


Implications are discussed, including the fact that the data seem to contradict Masters and Johnson about p3ni$ size having no physiological effect on female $3xual satisfaction.


When people speak of p3ni$ size, they typically refer to length. Thus, a man with a short but wide p3ni$ would probably think of himself as having a small p3ni$, and would be so thought of by others, too. However, width is part of size, although usually not acknowledged. Does width contribute to female $3xual satisfaction? Is length more important? Or, perhaps size is unrelated to female $3xual enjoyment.

Read Also: Eat These If You Want To Grow Huge Backside

Increase Your P3ni$ Size With These

The famous $3x researchers Masters and Johnson [1,2] have concluded that size of the male penis can have no true physiological effect on female $3xual satisfaction. They base this conclusion on their physiological studies that show that the vagjna adapts to fit the size of the p3ni$. Because of this vagjnal adaptation, they refer to the vagjna as a potential space rather than an actual space. Thus, despite the worries of many males about the size of their p3ni$, Masters and Johnson concluded that any size p3ni$ will fit and provide adequate $3xual stimulation to the female. The present study was conducted to see if female college students would report their $3xual satisfaction related to p3ni$ length, width, or neither.



To test the notion of the possible importance of length vs. width and female $3xual satisfaction, two male undergraduate college students – both popular athletes on campus – surveyed 50 female undergraduate college students, considered by the two males to be $3xually active, based on the males’ prior social experience and knowledge of the females.


The female students ranged in age from 18 to 25 years old. In person or via telephone, the females were asked “In having $3x, which feels better, length of p3ni$ or width of p3ni$?” In half the cases, the word “width” was used before the word “length,” but there were no other effects. There were also no effects for telephone vs. personal interview. All female participants answered the question, perhaps because they knew the student asking the question.

Results and Discussion

Of the 50 females surveyed, 45 reported that width felt better, with only 5 reporting length felt better (chi square = 32.00, df = 1, p < .001). No females reported that they could not tell any difference. Some did report that $3x in a relationship was better than $3x without commitment.

Masters and Johnson [1,2] have said that p3ni$ size should have no physiological effect on female $3xual enjoyment, since the vagjna adapts to fit the size of the p3ni$. The current results call this conclusion into question, and point to the importance of p3ni$ width. However, Masters and Johnson could be correct if the present subjects are only reporting their psychological preference, and not showing a true physiological preference. In other words, the present study solely assessed females’ perceived level of $3xual satisfaction, which might differ from actual physiological aroüsal and satisfaction.

It is not obvious why a wide p3ni$ would be preferred to a long p3ni$, but speculation would suggest the following. P3ni$ width may be important due to a p3ni$ thick at the base providing greater clïtoral stimulation as the male thrusts into the female during $3xual intercourse. That is, a wide p3ni$ would seem to offer a greater degree of contact with the outer part of the vagjna, including the clitoral area. If this is correct, then Masters and Johnson are wrong about p3ni$ size being unrelated, physiologically, to female $3xual satisfaction. Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny [3] do not totally rule out p3ni$ size being relevant, but they suggest that it is likely of minor importance for female $3xual satisfaction (see especially pages 509-510 in Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny [3]). Another possibility is that a wider p3ni$ provides the woman with a greater feeling of fullness, which is psychologically, and perhaps physiologically, satisfying.

Further research on $3x is necessary to understand the various influences on $3xual attitudes and behavior, including how attitudes influence behavior, if, in fact, they do [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Different samples could be studied, as well as using different methods of investigation. One might have women rank order different aspects of $3xual satisfaction, including such things as physical attractiveness of the partner, romantic feelings, love, and other things, as well as p3ni$ size. This would give an understanding of where the different attributes rank in women’s stated preferences. But, width vs. length deserves study.


Women reported that p3ni$ width was more important for their $3xual satisfaction than p3ni$ length. The results were statistically significant. P3ni$ width needs to be given more consideration, and taken into account when one discusses p3ni$ size. Also, it may be that Masters and Johnson [1,2,3] were wrong about p3ni$ size having little or no physiological effect on women’s $3xual satisfaction. However, the current data cannot provide a final answer, since they are based on self reports of women surveyed about penis length vs. width, and their $3xual satisfaction. The results reflect either a psychological preference or a true physiological reality, but we cannot say which, with the present method that was employed.

Akosua Boatemaa

Founder/ Journalist blogger, Psychologist, Media Marketer/ Real Female Promoter, Entertainment Critic & Editor for Email: [email protected]

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button