Yeah, the whole, "G spot doesn't exist because I'm a urologist and we don't see anything there," reminds me of the whole, "the foreskin is useless because we don't see anything there," argument. I say ask a female urologist what she thinks. The whole 5"-6" thing is ridiculous too because there has yet to be a statistically significant independently-verified study done across a broad range of men of different genetic backgrounds using something other than just men who volunteer for the study. I also take exception to the statement that penis size is not correlated with masculinity. Obviously, it is for many men and to dismiss it as a illegitimate concern is failing to address the psychology of western masculinity. It's like saying, "Oh you're fine. Get over it," when really, that's not true at all. There are men living their entire lives as celibates because they believe they will never be able to please anyone with their penis. That's a problem which medicine needs to address. It also reveals a complete double standard in that it there's little question of a woman being given a boob job because she wants one to be more sexually appealing or to feel more feminine yet when a man wants a bigger dick he's told he shouldn't be questioning what he was born with and that his sexuality is not all in his dick. That may say something about medicine's attitude toward women as much as men.
Last, I'm disappointed that they do not take PE seriously nor do they bother to discuss the various options. Yet again, a physician relies on conventional wisdom rather than bothering to investigate actual results from the Richards study to the BBC study: both of which found that enlargement is truly possible.
