Are there studies on penis size preferences by age group for women like Helen Fisher or Kinsey-era research?

1. Claims pulled from the record — what people are asserting and why it matters

The question asks whether studies exist on women's penis-size preferences by age group and whether such work resembles research by Helen Fisher or Kinsey-era investigators. The compiled analyses claim at least one experimental study using 3D-printed models where women chose preferred penile dimensions for short- versus long-term partners, and they invoke Kinsey-era sample efforts and Fisher’s broader mate-choice research as context ^{[1] [2] [4]}. These claims matter because they shape public understanding of sexual preferences and influence clinical, social and commercial conversations about body image. The record shows clear evidence of focused experiments on preference, but no clear evidence of systematic, age-stratified population studies comparable in scale or sampling frame to Kinsey’s historical data ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The strongest direct evidence — what the 3D-model studies actually found

A repeated finding across the supplied analyses is that the 2015 PLOS One study used selection from simplified 3D models to assess women's preferences and found women preferred slightly larger erect sizes for one-time partners than for long-term partners; reported “ideal” values were modestly above some global averages ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The study’s sample included sexually experienced women across an adult age span, and it reported that some women had ended relationships over penis size. These results demonstrate context-dependent preferences rather than large effect sizes, and they offer a methodological template for future work but do not resolve age-specific patterns because age-stratified analyses were either not emphasized or underpowered ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Method and measurement problems that limit conclusions

The analyses repeatedly flag methodological limits: small sample sizes (e.g., 75 women), simplified 3D models that remove real-world cues, potential sampling biases toward White/Asian or sexually experienced respondents, and reliance on recall or self-report in some studies ^{[1] [2] [5]}. These constraints mean statistical power for subgroup inference — including by age — is weak, and cross-study comparisons are compromised by differing measurement techniques and populations. The critiques imply that while individual experiments show measurable preferences, generalizing to age-stratified norms requires larger, representative designs with consistent measurement protocols ^{[1] [5]}.

4. Where Kinsey and Fisher fit into the picture — similar questions, different scales

Kinsey-era work provided large-scale descriptive data on male genital dimensions but did not focus on women's age-specific preferences for penis size in the way modern targeted experiments do; Helen Fisher’s work addresses mate choice and neurobiology at a broad level but not penis-size preference as a primary variable ^{[4] [6]}. Citing Kinsey gives useful baseline data on penile measurements; citing Fisher supplies theoretical frameworks for mate selection, but neither functions as direct evidence that robust, age-graded preference surveys exist. The upshot is methodological complementarity rather than direct equivalence: historical measurement and contemporary psychological theory inform the question but do not substitute for age-stratified preference data ^{[4] [6]}.

5. Conflicting findings and differing emphases across studies — what the record shows

Some studies and reviews emphasize that many women rate penis size as unimportant for sexual satisfaction, whereas other work highlights context-specific preferences and self-reported relationship outcomes tied to perceived size ^{[7] [2]}. The record therefore contains divergent emphases: experimental 3D-model selection studies reveal small average differences by relationship type, survey studies report broad variability in subjective importance, and reviews critique measurement biases. These tensions reflect different research goals—experimental precision versus population-level subjective importance—and underscore why claims about consistent age-group differences remain unproven ^{[8] [7] [5]}.

6. Bottom line and what rigorous next steps would look like

The current evidence indicates experimental proof-of-concept that women express modest, context-dependent penis-size preferences, but the literature lacks large, representative, age-stratified analyses comparable to Kinsey’s measurement studies or Fisher’s population-level mate-choice research. Closing that gap requires well-powered, demographically representative surveys that report age-stratified results, standardized measurement or validated visual tools, and transparent reporting of sexual orientation and relationship context. Until those studies are produced, any confident claim about how preferences vary by women’s age overreaches what the available analyses support ^{[1] [3] [5]}.