What is the average erect penis length in West Africa compared to Southern Africa?

1. Why the headline number—13.84 cm—matters but doesn’t answer the West vs. Southern question

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing 33 studies and 36,883 men reports a mean erect penile length of 13.84 cm, and it concludes that regional differences exist but that erect-length comparisons were limited by study numbers and heterogeneity ^{[1] [2]}. That pooled mean is useful as a global benchmark and highlights that average erect length across studies clusters around the mid‑teens in centimeters, but the analysis groups countries into WHO regions (Africa as a whole) rather than subdividing African data into West and Southern subregions, so it cannot directly answer the user’s question about a West vs. Southern African average ^{[2] [1]}. The review itself urges caution and the need for region-adjusted standards because measurement protocols and sampling frames vary widely ^[5].

2. Country-level studies suggest differences, but the picture is patchy and inconsistent

Country-specific reports compiled across datasets indicate variation: reported erect averages include Senegal ~15.89 cm, Gambia ~15.88 cm, Nigeria ~14.38 cm, and Zimbabwe ~15.68 cm, while a separate South African study reported 15.2 cm, all figures larger than the 13.84 cm pooled mean in some datasets ^{[3] [6]}. These country numbers derive from heterogeneous sources—some population-based, some clinic-based, some collated online—so apparent differences between West and Southern African countries may reflect differing study methods, sample composition, and reporting biases rather than true biological region-level differences ^{[3] [7]}. The methodological variation undermines a direct West vs. Southern regional average without harmonized measurement.

3. Measurement methods drive reported differences and confound regional comparisons

Many primary studies use flaccid, stretched, or erect measurements, and results differ systematically by method: stretched length is often used as a proxy for erect length but is not equivalent. The Southwest Nigeria urology clinic study measured flaccid and stretched lengths and found correlations with height and BMI but did not report erect lengths, illustrating how study design choices prevent simple aggregation into a West vs. Southern comparison ^[4]. The large meta-analyses note that lack of standardized measurement protocols across included studies increases heterogeneity and reduces confidence in fine-grained geographic comparisons; the review calls for standardized measurement in future research ^{[5] [1]}.

4. Statistical and sampling issues mean reported country averages may mislead if treated as region-level truths

Meta-analyses that group by WHO region report Africa as a whole rather than subregions and often lack enough high-quality, representative studies from each African subregion to produce robust subregional estimates ^[2]. Clinic-based samples, small convenience samples, and secondary compilations of legacy studies can inflate or deflate means depending on age distribution, health status, or selection bias; this makes cross-country or cross-subregion comparisons susceptible to sampling artifacts ^{[4] [7]}. The meta-analysis authors explicitly caution about interpreting apparent regional patterns in erect length as definitive, citing low study counts and inconsistent sample sizes as limiting factors ^[5].

5. What would be needed to answer the question reliably—and what current data imply

To resolve West vs. Southern Africa reliably requires harmonized, population-representative studies in multiple countries across both subregions using standardized erect measurement protocols and adequately powered samples; without that, the best-supported statement is that available pooled evidence finds a mean erect length near 13.8–13.9 cm globally, with some country-level reports in both West and Southern Africa above that average, but no robust subregional comparison has been published ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Policymakers, clinicians, and journalists should therefore treat country-specific figures as provisional and avoid drawing broad biological conclusions about entire subregions until standardized, region-stratified data are produced ^{[5] [4]}.