Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
According to BAPS POTS and other related surveys, at what penis size does partner negative comments peak?
Executive summary
Available sources do not identify a specific penis size at which partner negative comments "peak." The literature and surveys cited discuss fears of negative evaluation, partner preferences, and that partner criticism is uncommon in some samples, but none report a numeric size associated with maximal negative comments (not found in current reporting) [1][2][3].
1. What the BAPS, POTS and related scales actually measure
The Beliefs About Penis Size (BAPS) is a psychometric scale designed to quantify men’s shame and anticipations about being negatively judged for penis size; it measures beliefs about negative evaluation by others and anticipated consequences, not objective counts of partner comments at particular sizes [3][4]. Similarly, much of the clinical literature on penis-size anxiety focuses on men’s internal distress, avoidance and cognitive distortions rather than mapping partner remarks to specific centimetre or inch thresholds [5][6].
2. Survey and experimental literature: partner attitudes vs. numeric thresholds
Empirical work asking women to pick preferred dimensions (3D models, lab tasks) reports mean preferred lengths around 6.3–6.4 inches (≈16.0–16.3 cm) for one-off or short-term partners, slightly lower for long-term partners, but these are attractiveness preferences, not measures of partner criticism or ridicule frequency at particular sizes [2]. Population reviews and urology summaries emphasize limits in research and do not provide a size where partner negative comments peak; they stress that penis size is only one factor among many in sexual satisfaction [7][8].
3. Direct reports of partner negative comments: sparse and inconsistent
Some studies and reviews note that negative comments by sexual partners can occur and can contribute to distress, yet many samples report little direct partner ridicule: for example, a literature review found that participants were aware of societal mockery but “none of the participants had received direct negative comments about their penis size” in that study’s sample [1]. Other clinical reviews say partner comments can be a cause of penile size–related distress when they do occur, but they do not quantify at which size such comments are most frequent [5][6].
4. Why a numeric “peak” is unlikely to be reported in current research
Studies use varied methods (self-report scales, laboratory choice tasks, internet surveys) and different outcome measures (self-perceived adequacy, partner satisfaction, attractiveness ratings), so they don’t produce a single, comparable metric of partner negative-comment frequency by measured penis size [2][3]. The available work tends to address psychological impact and social beliefs rather than count partner insults tied to exact centimetres or inches [5][6].
5. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas in the literature and online surveys
Academic sources focus on clinical harm, measurement validity, and caution about over-interpreting size effects on satisfaction [3][7]. Commercial sites and informal polls (e.g., blog or retail-affiliated “surveys”) sometimes present sensational rankings and numeric “peaks,” but these sources are not in the provided academic set and often aim to traffic engagement or sell products—meaning their methods and agendas can bias results (available sources do not mention specific commercial claims in your query) (not found in current reporting).
6. Practical takeaways for readers worried about partner criticism
Clinicians recommend assessing distress holistically and using psychoeducation, cognitive therapy and behavioral work when size-related shame affects functioning; treatment tools target beliefs about negative evaluation rather than aiming to hit any target size [5][3]. Population-level preferences exist but do not equate to widespread partner insults at a particular measurement; many partners value communication, responsiveness, and intimacy more than exact dimensions [2][8].
7. Limitations and what is not known from the provided sources
No source in the provided set reports an empirical “peak” in partner negative comments tied to a specific penis size; there are no large-scale, clinically measured samples that cross-tabulate measured length/girth with partner-reported instances of criticism to produce such a peak (not found in current reporting). The data we do have emphasize subjective beliefs, social comparison effects, and the psychological consequences of anticipated or actual negative evaluation rather than a numeric tipping point [6][4].
If you want, I can (a) search specifically for studies that cross-reference objectively measured penis dimensions with partner-reported negative comments, or (b) summarize the BAPS questionnaire items so you can see which situations and fears it captures.