EXCLUSIVE What women really think in bed as ladies rank their partners below the belt
The vast majority of women are not satisfied by how endowed their partners are, according to a shock survey.
Nine in 10 said they wished their man was bigger below the belt.
The most desirable length was 7.5 inches - about 50 percent bigger than the average penis of American and British men, which is between five and 5.5 inches while erect.
Th survey, by Moorgate Andrology Clinic, a sexual cosmetic clinic in the UK, found the desire for bigger was true for women 18 years old through their mid-60s.
David Mills, managing director of Moorgate, said: 'To find that women want around seven and a half inches with a bigger-than-average girth reinforces what we've known for years, we just haven't had the proof until now.
'It confirms that overall women are not telling the truth if they say penis size isn't a factor.'
The results will sting the up to 50 percent of US and UK men who men report feeling self-conscious about the size of their penis.
Mills said the new study shows size may matter more than women let on and believes the findings could lead to an increase in penis enlargement surgeries, as well as help women feel open about talking to their partners about their satisfaction.
The urology specialists at the clinic said: 'The subject of penis size is becoming less and less taboo and studies such as the one we have launched will also help in this respect. It is about body image and confidence.
'Having a small penis can really affect men, giving them low self-esteem, making it difficult for them to have relationships and stopping them enjoying a normal life.'
For the research, 180 women were shown 27 'life-like' models of penises varying in size — from two to 10 inches while erect.
The women were asked four questions: What is the smallest sexual partner you've ever had?; What is your current partner's size?; What is the biggest you have seen?; and what would be your ideal size for sex?
About 90 percent said they wanted their partner's penis to be larger than its actual size, with an average length of 7.5 inches.
Of those, 40 percent said they wanted their partners to have more girth.
Mills said: 'By starting these conversations we want to make penis enlargement surgery as acceptable as breast enlargement is.
'This is the start of some serious medical research that we are undertaking.'
Penis enlargement surgery is an increasingly popular procedure done via several different methods.
Some physicians take fat from other areas of the body and inject it into the organ, while others use fillers under the skin.
Doctors may also cut the suspensory ligament that connects the penis to the pubic bone, making it hang lower and seem longer while flaccid.
Recent research suggests male enhancement procedures like these have increased over 250 percent between 2019 and 2022 in the US.
While bigger seems better, more length and girth could be painful for some women. Anywhere from five to 17 percent of American women have vaginismus, a condition in which the vagina tightens when something is inserted into it.
Women who go through menopause also have a thinner vaginal lining due to a lack of estrogen, which can make sex more painful, especially with a larger penis.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Should Australia worry about RFK Jr's shock flu vaccine move?
An influential US vaccine panel has recommended against seasonal influenza vaccines containing a specific preservative, causing concern among medical and scientific experts who fear the decision may impact future vaccine availability. But what is the preservative, why is it the subject of controversy and will it affect vaccines in Australia? Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic and the United States' health secretary, overhauled the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). He fired all 17 former members and appointed his ideological allies, some of whom have been associated with the spread of vaccine misinformation. The chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, Dr Sean O'Leary, said the world was looking at the new ACIP 'in horror', and that it was 'truly an embarrassment'. On Friday (Australia time) ACIP voted to recommend against influenza vaccines containing thimerosal, known in Australia as thiomersal. Anti-vaxxers have long scaremongered about thiomersal, a vaccine preservative, even though it is safe and makes vaccines safer by preventing bacterial and fungal contamination. There are concerns the move could make vaccines more expensive and harder to get, and broader concerns are that ACIP's decision could fuel misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Of the ACIP panel, five voted in favour, one abstained and Dr Cody Meissner, a paediatrics professor, was the sole 'no' vote. 'Removing thimerosal from all vaccines used in other countries … is going to reduce access to these vaccines, it will increase costs, and I think it's important to note that no study has ever indicated any harm from thimerosal,' he said. Thiomersal is a safe and effective preservative that is rarely, but sometimes, used in vaccines. It is contains ethylmercury, which is not to be confused with methylmercury, which accumulates in the body and has toxic effects. Ethylmercury, on the other hand, is more quickly converted in the body to inorganic mercury, then excreted. The National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) says it has been used in very small amounts since the 1930s to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination, particularly in multi-dose vials where contamination is more likely. At about the same time as Andrew Wakefield's thoroughly debunked work that falsely linked vaccines with autism, a study on methylmercury (not ethylmercury, the one in thiomersal) came out. People falsely conflated the two types of mercury and linked it with Wakefield's false claims that vaccines were connected to autism. None of the vaccines listed on the National Immunisation Program use thiomersal. It is only present in the vaccine for Q fever, which is only recommended for people at risk through their contact with animals. Thiomersal has not been used in any of the vaccines routinely given to children in Australia since 2000. Dr Gary Grohmann, the former head of immunobiology evaluating vaccines at the Therapeutic Goods Administration, says Australia has one of the world's best vaccine programs and is 'pretty autonomous' from the US. Grohmann also worked for the World Health Organisation in Geneva as a virologist. He says thiomersal is generally not needed because Australia mostly uses single-dose vaccines that are not at the same risk of contamination as multi-dose vaccines. He says as well, out of an overabundance of caution and a concern with public perception, Australia decided not to use thiomersal even though it is safe. In part, Professor Julie Leask, a social researcher specialising in vaccination at the University of Sydney, says that may have done more harm in the end, by 'legitimising this idea' that it was harmful. Also, while there is no evidence of potential harm, there was a purely theoretical concern about higher intakes in premature babies with low birth weights, as well as a more general wish to reduce children's exposure to mercury. Leask says it will have 'very little impact on vaccine availability' in Australia. But there are other concerns. A speculative one, she says, is that vaccine manufacturers could get spooked by ACIP's move 'throwing shade' on thiomersal and remove funding for vaccine research using it. The far bigger problem she said, is the 'super-spreading of misinformation or distortion of evidence' to make vaccines look harmful, by the sort of expert committee we were meant to be able to trust. 'This anti-vax sentiment is now at this very high level in the US government, and that gives it a form of legitimacy that it's never really had before,' she says. 'We've never seen a western government so willing to undermine public confidence in vaccinations. I have never been so concerned about the propensity for vaccine confidence to be eroded by what's happening in the US right now.' Grohmann agrees. 'The biggest problem is disinformation, which stops people getting their children vaccinated,' he says. 'Then you might get outbreaks of measles, of whooping cough, in unvaccinated communities.' Leask says people should use their critical faculties to judge what they read, particularly online. 'When you seem to be bombarded with scary information about vaccines, often that is highly cherrypicked,' she says. 'Keep an eye on advice from Australia. 'You can still trust what you can read from authoritative sources in Australia, including NCIRS and the government.' Grohmann says as well as dismissing disinformation and fearmongering about rare side effects, people should understand the benefits of vaccines for saving lives and for the economy. Each dollar spent on vaccination saves $16, he says. 'There's a positive economic benefit in terms of hospitalisations, GP visits, parents not missing work, kids not missing school,' he says. His other advice is to 'listen to experts, not YouTubers'. 'We vaccinate for a reason,' he says. 'It's to stop people from dying.' And, Leask says, there will be interesting tussles in the US between those who know the evidence and those who would distort it. 'There are still heroes within US agencies who are fighting a quiet, internal battle to keep good evidence in the spotlight,' she says.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
David Beckham pictured in hospital with arm in sling
Sir David Beckham has been pictured in a hospital bed with his arm in a sling. Victoria Beckham, the former England star's wife, posted an Instagram story on Friday morning wishing him a speedy recovery, adding: 'Get well soon daddy'. Sir David, 50, who was knighted in the King's Birthday Honours, could be seen wearing a hospital gown with anodes stuck to his shoulder. In a second post, Sir David's hand holds a bracelet with beads spelling out 'get well soon'. His ailments are currently unknown.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Cancer experts alarmed over ‘gut-wrenching' Trump plan to cut research spending by billions
More patients may die as a result of plans drawn up by the Trump administration to cut billions of dollars from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), veteran federal government workers and experts have warned. Nearly $2.7bn would be cut from the agency, which is the largest funder of cancer research in the world – a decline of 37.2% from the previous year – under a budget proposal for 2026, in the latest effort to cut staff and funding. 'These cuts are absolutely gut wrenching,' Erin Lavik, former deputy director and chief technology officer at the NCI's division of cancer prevention, told the Guardian. Lavik was fired along with a swath of probationary workers at the institute in February; put on administrative leave in response to a judge's ruling to halt the firings in March; and then terminated again in April. 'We're not making things more efficient or better,' she said. 'What's being left is sort of the non-impactful iterative work, and we're pruning all of the potential for transformative science.' The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network has cautioned that the proposed cuts 'will set this nation back dramatically in our ability to reduce death and suffering' and noted that cancer is expected to kill more than 618,000 Americans this year. Julie Nickson, vice-president of Federal Advocacy and Coalitions, said: 'This wouldn't just be a blow to science, it's a blow to families, communities, and our economy. Every day counts in the fight against cancer and with more than 2 million Americans expected to be diagnosed with this horrible disease in 2025 alone, now is not the time to go backwards.' Jennifer R Brown, secretary of the American Society of Hematology and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told the Guardian that cuts under Donald Trump have 'already been devastating', with key research halted that can't easily be restarted. 'What the public needs to know is that the science that may not sound so obvious, or that they may not know that much about, is really what drives our cancer treatments and our cancer cures. And so if we cut that, we're going to lose it,' said Brown. Cancer research historically funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which houses the NCI, 'is the basic science that figures out what to target in the cancer cell', she said. 'Then a drug may be developed that may be from an academic, it may be from a pharma company, but the trials are then also run by academics and pharma in collaboration, and academics who are funded by NIH, who do the legwork to figure out how the drug is working in patients. 'Pharma companies take the drug to the finish line. And so if we don't have this basic research, we're not going to be able to identify new targets, and that means we're not going to have new therapies, and ultimately more patients may die.' Brown sees a direct link between NIH-funded academic research and cancer drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia that helped patients live longer. 'People who would have died in a few months, lived for years with the first version of this drug,' she said. Hundreds of staff have been terminated from the NCI in recent months, including dozens of communications workers. 'Our website, is used worldwide and is the ground truth for cancer information,' said one fired communications employee at the institute, who requested to remain anonymous. 'Science isn't finished until it's communicated.' Between 28 February and 8 April, more than $180m in NCI grants were cancelled by the Trump administration. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion NIH declined to comment, deferring to comments on the budget proposal cuts to the office of management and budget, which did not respond to requests for comment. NIH did not comment on how many employees at the agency remain after several rounds of cuts and layoffs. Lavik said the cuts are likely to threaten large-scale research programs, such as the National Community Oncology Research program, which covers community hospitals all over the US and ensures patients have access to clinical trials, cutting edge cancer care, prevention and screenings. 'I am deeply concerned about the future of these really important clinical trials programs that are really hard to rebuild if you stop them,' she said. 'In the prevention program, there are large scale screening trials, and they have large data sets. We were working really hard on policies to make those data sets more accessible and available to the research community. And we're all gone.' Drastic cuts across federal science funding is causing scientists to consider leaving science and eliminating opportunities for younger scientists to enter training pipelines as undergraduate researchers, graduate researchers and postdocs, according to Lavik. 'The things that are transformative are fundamentally high-risk, high-reward research,' she said. 'We start to move into the clinic, and that's what leads to the new kinds of treatments that don't just help a little bit, but really change the face of how we treat patients, how we prevent cancers, how we treat other conditions. 'You have to be willing to do lots and lots of things that don't work. There are so many ways we should be more efficient about what we do. But to do that, you really need those young scientists, those new people in the field; you need the people who've come into the NIH and the NCI, who are thinking differently about doing things and willing to take those big swings.'
