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.
Fact check: What are the average penis size changes in men over 60?
Executive Summary
The available literature does not provide consistent, direct measures of average penis size changes specifically in men over 60; most studies address erectile function, histologic penile changes with aging, or global temporal trends without age-stratified results for seniors [1] [2] [3] [4]. The best-supported conclusions are that aging is associated with tissue-level changes in the penis and with increased prevalence of erectile dysfunction, but reliable population estimates of dimensional shrinkage for men 60+ are not presented in the cited studies [3] [4] [5].
1. Why the direct question has no direct, clear answer right now
The systematic reviews and longitudinal studies cited focus on either temporal global trends in penile length or on sexual function and erectile performance, not on age-specific dimensional change for men over 60. A 2023 meta-analysis reported a global temporal increase in erect penile length over decades but explicitly did not break results down for the 60+ age group, leaving a gap for senior-specific size trends [1] [2]. Older cohort studies that address sexual activity and erectile function give useful context about declining function with age but stop short of reporting mean length-by-age statistics required to answer the question directly [5] [4].
2. What the studies do report about structural penile aging
Clinical and histologic reviews describe loss of smooth muscle, increased fibrosis, and vascular changes in aging penile tissue that plausibly reduce rigidity and could change flaccid and possibly stretched measurements, but these reviews do not quantify average length loss in population samples of men over 60 [3]. The 2012 clinical review links tissue remodeling to erectile dysfunction and decreased penile elasticity, offering a plausible mechanism for dimensional changes, yet it refrains from providing population-level size estimates or age-stratified metrics, which means mechanism exists without population quantification [3].
3. What population studies say about sexual function but not size
Longitudinal population research consistently documents declines in sexual desire, erection frequency, and intercourse with advancing age; for example, the Massachusetts Male Aging Study and follow-ups show decreased sexual activity in men in their 50s and 60s, and rising erectile dysfunction prevalence in older cohorts [5] [4]. These functional declines are well-documented and may correlate with perceived or measured changes in flaccid state, but they do not equate to measured reductions in erect or flaccid penile length and therefore cannot substitute for direct size-change data [5] [4].
4. Conflicting or incomplete data on temporal size trends
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis reported a 24% worldwide increase in erect length over 29 years, yet the work did not disaggregate findings by older age brackets such as 60+; this produces an apparent conflict between a global upward secular trend and clinical expectations of tissue degeneration with age [1] [2]. The coexistence of long-term secular increases and short-term age-associated tissue changes underlines why cross-sectional and cohort designs are necessary: cross-sectional increases across birth cohorts do not directly inform within-individual aging-related change after age 60 [1] [2].
5. What is missing from the literature and why it matters
Key omissions are age-stratified penile dimension data for seniors, longitudinal measurements of the same individuals as they pass the 60-year threshold, and standardized measurement protocols for flaccid, stretched, and erect states among older men. Reviews of sexual dysfunction emphasize clinical endpoints and quality of life, not anthropometric penile measurements in elderly cohorts [6] [7] [8]. Without standardized repeated measures, researchers cannot disentangle cohort effects, measurement variability, comorbidities, or treatments (e.g., testosterone therapy, PDE5 inhibitors) from true age-related dimensional change [7] [4].
6. How clinicians interpret the available evidence in practice
Clinicians rely on histologic knowledge—fibrosis, smooth muscle loss, and vascular disease—to explain decreased erectile rigidity and potential reductions in stretched or flaccid appearance, while treating erectile dysfunction with established therapies; however, clinicians acknowledge the absence of robust, peer-reviewed age-specific size norms for men over 60 [3] [8]. As a result, counseling focuses on function and treatable causes of change—cardiometabolic disease, hormonal deficits, and medication effects—rather than promising quantifiable size trajectories for patients [3] [4].
7. Bottom line and research priorities going forward
Current evidence supports that aging affects penile tissue and erectile function, but does not provide reliable average size-change figures specifically for men over 60. Priority research items are longitudinal, standardized measurements spanning midlife into older age, explicit age-stratified reporting in meta-analyses, and studies that control for comorbidities and therapies; these would resolve whether and to what extent measurable dimensional shrinkage occurs in seniors beyond functional decline [2] [3]. For now, any quantitative claim about average penile size change in men over 60 would exceed what these sources support [1] [6].