Penis Size: It's Hila-racist-ious!

A recent Reuters headline which I came across on MSNBC.com informed me that "Condoms a big problem for men in India." In contemplating all the things that are wrong with the headline alone I was sadly reminded of how so-called news editors are all men who giggle at the word penis, and how they are so enamored with their juvenile distractions they manage to forget not only how to do math, but also how to not be racist.

The article is about a two year study conducted through the Indian Council of Medical Research which set out to determine what the average penis size is of men in India. It is a gloss of a slightly longer but still bewildering article published in the Times of India which reported that the project found "60% of the participants measured 126 to 156 mm in length and 30% between 100 and 125 mm," and that these sizes are significantly smaller than average condom sizes, and therefore condoms need to be smaller for Indian men. According to the Times of India piece, the council will be making recommendations regarding new condom sizes in the next few months (although I highly doubt this is true).

Now I could be generous and consider the reason for such an absurd statement to be published in any legitimate news source to be the same old story; when it comes to any sex content the editorial gaze fogs over, and any old rubbish will be printed.

In this case I should write a letter to Reuters and the Times of India and explain the following:

1. Condom sizes are universally larger than average penis size. This is true in Europe, in North America, and in India. Condoms are significantly longer than the average penis length, and are designed to stretch and accommodate average penis width.
2. Measuring average penis size is in fact a difficult and somewhat contentious subject. One of the reasons that it's so hard to arrive at accurate averages is that everyone does it differently.
3. The reported averages of penis size for this non-representational sample of 1,400 men in this study fall very much within the Western averages.
4. While ill fitting condoms are indeed one reason for condom failure and failure to use condoms in the first place, making condoms smaller will not necessarily fix this problem.

But let's say, on the other hand, that I'm not feeling generous. I'm feeling cynical and bitter about mainstream media's treatment of sexuality. And feeling this way I think to myself, "this sure sounds familiar, let me think, who were the last people to seriously correlate genitalia and race?" In this case I should write a letter to Reuters and the Times of India and remind them of the following:

1. One of the last groups who carefully documented the relationship between genitalia and race were the colonial pornographers "scientists", not exactly the folks any of you want to emulate.
2. In all this reporting there is confusion between biological origin and citizenship. This study of 1,400 men who live in India doesn't tell us anything about "Indian men". Suggesting this study applies to all Indian men suggests that every male living in India is the same, and has the same background. The generalization being made here is like saying that all American men are white.
3. I shouldn't have to point this out to a group of ostensibly educated news people, but penis size simply is not a salient characteristic from which we can extrapolate anything in regard to race. In fact let's not forget that the physical parameters of race are, to an extent, arbitrary. And the variety inside any group is just as likely to be robust as the variety between groups.

In the end I prefer to think of these articles as another example of how, when it comes to reporting on sex, journalists and editors consistently phone it in (but not in the legitimate "I'm calling my story in" way). I don’t know why I find it less depressing to consider them infantile instead of racist, but I do.

Read more – MSNBC.com: Condoms a big problem for men in India

Read more – The Times of India: Indian men don't measure up