Jun 20Liked by George Francis

Clever methodology! And a fascinating topic. I wonder though about possible confounding selection biases to do with the sample of johns.

First: Men who use prostitutes are on average of lower social status. Black men are on average of lower social status. Could men with small penises also be on average of lower social status? If so, then you could be seeing an effect that men from higher social status ethnicities are mostly likely to use a prostitute if they have a small penis, whereas black men are nearly always of lower social status, so you are seeing their full range of penis sizes.

Second: Similar to above, but with the idea that white and Asian men would mostly only feel the need to use a prostitute if they were small-penised, whereas black men have such high libido that they visit prostitutes even if their penis is large. Again suggesting that a large range of black men visit prostitutes but only an unrepresentative sample of white and Asian men use them, selected specifically for their small penis size.

There is also the issue of showers-vs-growers. Black men, because of evolving in a hot environment, do not need to have their penes shrink much when not erect. Are the prostitutes all only reporting on erect size? Even if they intended to, these are just their self-reported impressions and as such may be biased by their simultaneous recollections of the flaccid size.

You could try interviewing Men who have Sex with Men (MSMs) as they would also see a wide variety of penii. Though that would also have selection biases, including that studies seem to show that homosexual men have larger penis size than average to begin with.

Expand full comment