THE CHAPS' VIEW - by Quentin Letts . One of the great mysteries of mankind — and I mean mankind — may have been solved. Scientists from King’s College London have measured 15,000 penises in 16 countries. This work has allowed them, after feeding the findings into computers, making boffinish statistical adjustments, twiddling knobs and squinting at graphs, to announce an average size for chaps’ undercarriage. That, in turn, has been seized on as having psychological significance. Apparently, we men are now less likely to have a nervous collapse about our own shortcomings. Quentin says that Michelangelo’s 16th century statue of the naked David (pictured), can sometimes be a source of fun for being a 'tiddler' We have not been told the logistical ins and out, if that is the term, of this ground-breaking global operation. The research demanded at least two readings (one at ease, one standing to quivering attention) for each handsome specimen. The mind boggles. Were the laboratory assistants who took the data dreary, middle-aged men speaking in the monotones of E. L. Wisty (the know-it-all creation of the comedian Peter Cook)? Or were they busty, sultry ladies with husky larynxes and widening eyes? To what level of exactitude were the measurements taken? What instruments were employed — school rulers, tape measures, laser micrometers or (ouch) cold, industrial calipers? While we’re about it, exactly how, in 16 languages, do you say ‘sorry to interrupt your busy day, monsieur, but would you mind dropping your drawers so that my pouting assistant Miss Droop can take the bore and length of your old man’? But back to the conclusions. Dr David Veale, the fine body of a man who led the psychiatrists from King’s, has announced that the average length of an erect penis is 5.16 in. Typically, it sounds more in Continental centimetres — 13.12 cm. The figure shrivels to 3.6 in when the member is in a state of genial repose. If we can place this in context, the late Sue Townsend’s spotty schoolboy character Adrian Mole fretted that his ‘thing’ rose to a mere 4.3 in, something that gave the poor lad hours of angst, while the once accepted norm, at least of myth, was nearly half as much again — the old ‘six inches of proud British manhood’. Michelangelo’s 16th century statue of the naked David, sometimes a source of fun for being a tiddler, may not have been so unusual after all. You may think it peculiar that I dwell on these matters, not least for what I am about to say: I seriously doubt that many blokes are much concerned by these readings. I do not mean that they will not have been interested and amused by yesterday’s news reports. Indeed, I bet most of us, when we read the Mail, discreetly did some thumbwork to try to work out what 5.16 in looks like, and then had a rough gander below decks to see how we fared by comparison. But will men have been psychologically affected? Does size matter to us as it is said to matter, particularly to our wives and girlfriends? Or is this yet another attempt by the medical/psychiatric world to create collywobbles where previously few existed? Dr Veale said his findings would ‘help doctors reassure the large majority of men that the size of their penis is in the normal range’. He said he would ‘use the graphs to examine the discrepancy between what a man believes to be their position on the graph and their actual position’. Another doctor disclosed that some men, poor fellows, suffer from something called body dysmorphic disorder, which can cause a person to have a distorted view of how he looks. Apparently, this is a serious source of anxiety to some gents, who become convinced they are laughably tiny. One does not wish to downplay the gravity of body dysmorphic disorder, which no doubt exists. One naturally has sympathy with those who may worry that they have been given short commons in the trouser department by the Almighty. But is this perhaps a case of publicly employed scientists going to expensive lengths to investigate a not particularly widespread problem? Is male appendage size quite possibly a false hoo-hah created by society? It has been said that the late Dame Elizabeth Taylor (pictured) had physical difficulty with one of her early husbands, so enormous was his manhood . There may be extreme cases of smallness or vastness, where it can create disharmony between men and their sexual partners. The late Dame Elizabeth Taylor had physical difficulty with one of her early husbands, so enormous was his manhood. Wide as a beer can, apparently. In the rock music world there was a falling out between Rolling Stones Richards and Jagger after Keith made public remarks about Mick being a little chap. And what are we to make of the vast codpieces that bed-hopping Henry VIII had made for his suits of armour? Real need or a figment of Henry Tudor’s imagination? Only his six wives could have told us. But does any of that truly justify a research operation of the size (dread word) just carried out by these London medics? There was a famous falling out between Mick Jagger (pictured) and fellow Rolling Stone, Keith Richards, after Keith made remarks about Mick's manhood . And anyway, are women really so concerned with measurements? Is there not something more important than size — namely, love? For millennia, the male member has occupied a curious place. Immediate riposte: Yes, mate, between your legs! But please, let the class pipe down for a few moments. In ancient civilisation, penises were considered to have mythical significance linked to male power and eternity. At Pompeii, there is an ancient Roman mural of the fertility god Priapus walking around with the most tremendous todger, as long as a trombone. Well played, that man. Closer to home we have the Cerne Abbas Giant in Dorset, cut into a hillside with his John Thomas riding high. The eternity aspect of this symbolism is easily explained and the ability to sire offspring could bestow power, for the more sons you had, the better you were able to defend your household. But those were primitive concerns. The correlation between penis size and power in the modern era, even 200 years ago, is less persuasive. Napoleon was notoriously small. For this information, we can thank a cruel pathologist who allegedly removed his ‘item’ after his death and pickled it in formaldehyde. It was later auctioned in Paris. Heaven knows if the object in that jar, indeed, belonged to the 19th century French emperor, but it was used against him posthumously as a way of diminishing his reputation. How trivial and cheap, to mock a great man after his death in such a fashion. Even if he was on the ‘petit’ side, Bonaparte was a mighty general with unarguable power. From the sublime to the ridiculous, that silly oaf John Prescott suffered something similar when he was caught having an affair with his typist a few years ago. I recall a front page of the Daily Mirror that featured an illustration of a cocktail sausage. Poor old Prescott. However, the mockery did not do his reputation harm. If anything, it made the one-time deputy Prime Minister more popular. Footballer, David Beckham (pictured) has also been the subject of much speculation thanks to the numerous photos of him advertising underwear . Last year, a statue of peacocking footballer Cristiano Ronaldo was unveiled in Madeira. Necks were clutched and faces fanned when it was first shown to the public because the shorts featured an implausibly large bulge. Our own David Beckham has been the subject of speculation after his numerous poses in underpant adverts. He claims he has never stuffed socks down his front to create a bigger impression. But if he did, would it matter? Shrinks might say so, but I am unconvinced. Men know there is not much they can really do to alter the equipment fate has given them. Women can increase or decrease the size of their busts by visiting a plastic surgeon, but medical science offers men much less chance to vary their dimensions. Similarly, despite all those baldness cure adverts, there is not much they can do to stop their hairlines receding. You just have to accept it and get on with life. A statue of footballer Cristiano Ronaldo (pictured) was unveiled in Madeira last year and caused public shock because the shorts featured an implausibly large bulge . Adrian Mole may have agonised about this subject, but he was created by a woman. I simply don’t believe, even in this age of explicit advertisements with endless commercial emphasis on sex, that blokes give much thought to their willy size. I attended boarding schools in the Seventies and barely recall anyone mentioning how well hung they were. We did have one boy who was nicknamed ‘Chopper’, but that was because he was a notoriously dirty tackler on the football field. Did we size up one another in the communal showers? Not that I recall. Mind you, I have always been short-sighted and in showers you naturally have to remove your spectacles. If I had been interested in seeing how Sproggins Minor measured up, then I would have had to peer down quite close for a proper gawp, and I’m not sure that would have been appreciated. For all I know, Sproggins Minor is now running a bank and earning millions of pounds a year — a big player one way or another.
Scientists from King’s College measured 15,000 penises in 16 countries . This allowed them to announce an average size for a man's package . Here, Quentin Letts gives the men's side of the story .