Personal Genital Satisfaction and Perception of Sexual Anatomy and Function
Happiness with one’s genitals and breasts may affect sexual performance and overall life quality. Men who are unhappy with their genitals often avoid certain sexual activities, and women with low genital satisfaction usually feel less satisfied with their appearance. Some may seek cosmetic surgery, but dissatisfaction often remains.
Past studies have focused on genital function and personal satisfaction but did not explore what is considered “normal” genitalia. For example, tools like the Index of Male Genital Image (IMGI) and the Breast Size Rating Scale (BSRS) measure satisfaction but not perceptions of normality. Furthermore, research has shown preferences for certain genital features, but again lacks insight into what people believe is normal.
Therefore, a new study surveyed public views on what is normal for male and female genitalia and breast appearance, aiming to help people with low satisfaction by understanding these perceptions. This knowledge is crucial for improving self-esteem and addressing the broader influences on genital and breast preferences.
This study, approved by Johns Hopkins University, used a survey to explore public views on “normal” male and female genitalia and breast appearance. Conducted from January to March 2023 via ResearchMatch, the survey included 54 questions on sexual satisfaction, preferences, and demographics, targeting participants aged 18 and older.
The survey used validated scales like the IMGI and BSRS for accurate measurements. Participants were divided into high and low genital satisfaction groups based on their self-reported satisfaction levels. The study analyzed demographics, sexual activity, preferences, and quality-of-life measures, including stress related to one’s genitalia. Statistical tests were then used to analyze the data to determine statistically significant findings.
The study surveyed 649 people (560 completed) about their views on genital and breast appearance and sexual satisfaction. Most respondents were women (72.1%) and white (83.2%). Participants were divided into low and high genital satisfaction groups. Key findings include:
- Male Genitalia: Most believed a normal erect penis length is 4.1 to 6 inches and that circumcision is normal. There were mixed views on pubic hair and penis girth. Additionally, individuals with low genital satisfaction tended to underestimate penis size.
- Female Genitalia: Most thought female genital mutilation is uncommon and a C cup is an average breast size. Respondents were split on vaginal lubrication needs.
- Female Orgasms: Many men overestimated the length of female orgasms, possibly due to social narratives and gender norms.
- Sexual Activity: Those with high genital satisfaction reported being more sexually active, having more frequent sexual activity (1-3 times per week), and experiencing lower stress. Most respondents used sex toys and felt their genitals were normal.
- Body Image: Body positivity improved sexual function in women, while low genital satisfaction in men was tied to reduced pleasure and arousal. Anxiety and depression negatively impacted sexual well-being.
- Stress and Normalcy: People who believed their genitals were normal had lower stress and higher satisfaction. Women were more likely to consider their genitals normal compared to men. This could be influenced by a cultural emphasis on penis size. Lower satisfaction was linked to higher stress and less frequent sexual activity.
Ultimately, the results of this study suggest that perceptions of genitalia and sexual satisfaction are influenced by multiple factors, including media exposure, cultural norms, and body image. Further research is needed to understand these perceptions and improve sexual health education and therapeutic approaches.
References:
- Choi, U. E., Nicholson, R. C., Grutman, A. J., & Cohen, A. J. (2024). Personal genital satisfaction is associated with differences in perception of male and female sexual anatomy and function. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 21(7), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae053