So, you are basing your information on data that was collected 82 years ago.
82 years.
And they finished their study 57 years ago.
I hope you realize that any reputable study questions the validity of source material that is 10+ years old. And you are quoting something that was started almost a century ago. K, gotcha. Even if common sense didn't ring a bell with the idea that "homosexuals have larger penises", the sheer archaic nature of what you are basing it on should have discounted your assertion.
Also, did you read the article? Or just take the Abstract, with the Kinsey info, as truth? It goes into much more detail. Let me post some quotes from it.
"However, one criticism of these approaches (e.g.,
Byne and Parsons, 1993) is that there is little evidence that homosexual men and
women differ from heterosexual men and women in genital morphology.."
"A number of factors may account for why heterosexuals and the vast majority
of homosexuals do not seem to differ in genital morphology.."
And, on the measuring itself:
"Penis length was estimated or measured along the top of the penis
from the belly to the tip. For penis circumference, the men were told to measure
at the point of maximum circumference. During the interviews, Kinsey and his
colleagues often slowly slid a nger along a standard ruler with the numerals
not visible and t old the men to indicate when the length of their erect penis had
been reached. For the measured sizes, the men were given speci c instructions
on how to measure their penises, and precision of measurement was stressed.
These measured sizes were performed after the interview, and the participants
mailed their measurements to the Kinsey Institute using standard response cards
and preaddressed stamped envelopes"
So, they did the measurements on the honor system, not using a trained clinician who would take them in person. On that basis alone, the data is unreliable. That is why archaic sources like this are generally not used, as modern rigors of research are much more stringent, and the results are more widely peer reviewed.
Although the basis of that article hinges off the Kinsey study, the bulk of it is on hormonal discussions, and the
potential affect on the developing fetus' and child's penis size up through puberty, while also acknowledging genetics and other environmental affects.
But, again, they are using the Kinsey data as their source, and building an argument around it. As I've noted, that data is unreliable. A modern study with a large population might show a trend, but with all the unmeasurable variables of past diet, hormones, environmental impact, etc.. that would be suspect as well.
Oh, did I forget to toss in the bias of the researcher? At the very end of the article:
"Second, it is clear that, despite the fact that gay men
may be more concerned than heterosexual men with some elements of their body,
such as the need for a thin physique (e.g., Siever, 1994), heterosexual men are in
fact concerned—even preoccupied—about the size of their penises and often de-
sire a larger one (e.g., Zilbergeld, 1978). Third, heterosexual men are often much
more conforming than homosexual men to stereotypically “masculine” gender
roles (e.g., Bailey and Zucker, 1995). Fourth, there is evidence tha t homosexual
men may be less likely than heterosexual men to falsify/exaggerate personality
and attitudinal information on questionnaires where social desirability is a n issue
(Freedman, 1975)"
Top to bottom, this is a highly flawed article, and certainly isn't a firm base for your assertion of (all) homosexual men having larger penises than heterosexual men.
Source:
full article