Get SF Weekly Newsletters

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Here Is That 1965 "Problems of Sex Organ Size" Pamphlet You've Been Looking For

Posted By on Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:00 AM

click to enlarge studies_in_crap_problems_of_sex_organ.jpg
Your Crap Archivist brings you the finest in forgotten and bewildering crap culled from Golden State thrift stores, estate sales, and flea markets.

Problems of Sex Organ Size

Author: Paul Williamson, M.D.
Date: 1965
Publisher: Sexology
Discovered at: San Francisco estate sale
All Those Rulers on the Cover Suggest: That men's stats would sound much more impressive if we would have switched over to metric.

Representative Quote:

"I read somewhere that the penis shows more variation in size and structure than the male face. This is probably quite true."

It's difficult to imagine that the quote above-- taken from the first of this pamphlet's three essays -- didn't stir serious doubts in the hearts of the concerned penis-measurers of 1965. What kind of serious academic study is satisfied with the citation "I read somewhere"? Does the author -- Dr. Paul Williamson -- specify the "male face" because the female's shows greater variation than the penis? If penises are so distinct, could pantslessness be a solution to face blindness?

After warming us up with that weirdness, Dr. Williamson whips out the facts you've been hungry for:

  • "The erect penis varies in length from about four and a half to eight inches in average men."
  • "The average is just under six inches."
  • "There are very few people -- say one of every 100 men -- who may be less than four and a half inches or more than eight inches long."
  • "As far as I know, the longest male penis ever recorded was just under fourteen inches."

That last fact is hopelessly out of date. In the late '70s, Warner Brothers recorded one that was almost five-foot-two:

click to enlarge prince_dirty_mind.jpg
Dr. Williamson adds, "The shortest, of course, is complete absence," which I think means that the tiniest penises make the heart grow fonder.

Here's his official 1965 widths:

"The diameter varies from less than an inch to over two inches, with the average at mid-shaft between one and one-half inches."
("Mid-shaft" is how the penises hang when a president dies.)

Dr. Williams lays it all out on a chart I dare you not to think about the next time your kids' school has a fundraiser:

click to enlarge studies_in_crap_sex_organ_size_chart.jpg
If the fifth graders sell enough magazine subscriptions, the cafeteria gets a new uterus!

For the remainder of his essay, Dr. Williamson reassures men that a small penis is no impediment to a vigorous sex life. "It has nothing at all to do with the man's own gratification," he points out.

As for women:

"In most cases where the male organ is of small size, the wife finds it unimportant, or perhaps she doesn't even know that her husband has a penis shorter than average. The more promiscuous such a man is, the more likely it is that he will be told of his anatomic deficiency."

Women will like it just fine, just so long as they don't know any better.

Of course, even Dr. Williamson acknowledges that not all men are naturally going to satisfy all women. In these cases, he recommends that men might make up for their inadequacy by trying to feel connected to their wives:

"When the emotional component is brought into sex, the physical size or conformation of the sex organs makes very little difference to the wives."
To acquire this "emotional component" and other fine marital aids, ask your doctor for a prescription.

Oddly, Dr. Williamson seems to contradict his major claim every couple of paragraphs. He promises men that everything will be fine so long as they're tender and proficient and choose women who have enjoyed only a limited sampling of what the population offers. He insists that even a man who is understaffed can enjoy a lengthy, fulfilling marriage with a loving woman. But then he drops in this:

"Very possibly a woman who has enjoyed a superb sexual performer will not forget him. Their sighs are much more nostalgia than desire. It is nice to have seen Niagara Falls or Pike's Peak, but who would want to live there?"
Pike's Peak? Come on, Doc! You said we only had to beat six inches!

Shocking Detail:
You know how often, when someone is speaking on a controversial topic, he or she will air one said for a while and then get to a but that you can totally hear coming? In Dr. Williamson's case, that but never arrives:

"Popular theory has it that childbirth tends to ruin a woman as a sexual partner. Like many popular theories about sex, it has a germ of truth in it. Certainly having a child does tend to stretch and tear the muscles which hold close the vaginal opening and which are so essential in intercourse. Sometimes these muscles come back to normal, sometimes not."

Highlight:
Dr. Williamson reminds his readers that "marriage is not just a legalized sex binge" and urges men and women to accept that sex is only a part of a relationship. He argues:

"It would take a pair of real experts to devote more than 30 minutes a day to sex during a period of 30 years. What about the other 23 hours and 30 minutes every day?
Obviously, Dr. Williamson, those remaining hours are when good, sex-guide obeying married Americans of the 1960s go around telling everyone else that their sex is immoral!

BONUS CRAP:
The same estate sale had this thematically similar cookbook:

click to enlarge studies_in_crap_meat_60s.jpg

Look what just a bit of garnish can do to improve a weak cut!

--

Hey, you could do worse than following @studiesincrap or @ExhibitionistSF on the Twitter thing.

The mighty Studies in Crap e-mail list alerts you whenever a new SiC post hits. Sign up at studiesincrap@sfweekly.com

  • Pin It

Tags: , , , , ,

About The Author

Alan Scherstuhl

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Popular Stories

  1. Most Popular Stories
  2. Stories You Missed

Like us on Facebook

Slideshows