Is it possible, and if so, how, that some of the sources on this site do not exist and are entirely fictional or randomly generated? https://www.myintimacy.com/guides/average-penis-size/
Executive summary
It is possible that some sources cited on MyIntimacy are nonexistent, fabricated, or generated; the site's own legal and commercial disclosures create both the permissive environment and the incentive structure that make nonverifiable sourcing plausible [1] [2]. The evidence available shows clear motives and loose editorial guarantees but does not prove that the "average penis size" page specifically contains fictional sources—reporting does not provide direct verification of that page's bibliography or sourcing [3] [1].
1. Why the site's boilerplate makes fabrication plausible
MyIntimacy’s Terms of Service explicitly disclaims any warranty about the accuracy or reliability of materials on the site and warns that the site has not reviewed all linked resources, which reduces legal risk if a link or citation is wrong or nonexistent [1]. That kind of blanket disclaimer is standard, but here it functions as an explicit admission that the publisher does not guarantee source vetting, a precondition that makes publication of weakly sourced or even invented references legally safer for the operator [1].
2. Commercial incentives that reward loose sourcing
The site participates in affiliate programs and discloses that it may earn commissions if readers click through and buy products, which creates a commercial incentive to publish enticing, traffic-driving content even when the underlying research is thin; affiliate disclosure makes the financial motive explicit [2]. When revenue depends on pageviews and conversions rather than scholarly rigor, there is an operational incentive to prioritize attention-grabbing claims and summaries over painstaking citation checks [2].
3. Site profile and content mix that increase the odds of shortcut sourcing
MyIntimacy presents itself as a mix of shopping rankings, reviews, and "tips and guides," showing the site’s editorial model leans toward practical consumer content rather than original academic research [3]. A health category that reads like community Q&A or general guides [4] is consistent with content assembled from secondary summaries, press releases, or aggregation—formats where citations can be sloppy or omitted, and where editors might substitute paraphrase for sourcing without checking original studies [3] [4].
4. Evidence of external ambiguity and mixed brand identity
Third-party listings and consumer complaint sites show inconsistent or mixed information about the brand (PissedConsumer reviews and ZoomInfo corporate summaries), suggesting confusion about identity, ownership, or editorial stewardship—conditions that correlate with uneven quality control, including unverifiable sourcing [5] [6]. Public listings and reviews show the domain is active and indexed, but they also reveal disparate business footprints that may reflect multiple operators or outsourced content production, a setup that can allow fabricated or poorly checked sources to slip in [5] [6].
5. Technical legitimacy ≠ editorial rigor
A security-score snapshot indicates a healthy technical posture for the domain—high cybersecurity ratings or an unclaimed scorecard—meaning the site is likely operated by a functioning organization but says nothing about how rigorously editorial claims are fact-checked [7]. In short, technical legitimacy allows a site to scale and monetize reliably, but it does not guarantee that individual pages cite real academic papers or primary data.
6. Plausible mechanisms for nonexistent or generated sources
Combining the above: the site’s legal disclaimers lower liability for errors [1], affiliate economics provide motive [2], the content model favors aggregated consumer-facing guides rather than original research [3] [4], and mixed corporate traces point to outsourced or opaque publishing chains [6]. Under those conditions, plausible mechanisms include lazy attribution (linking to summaries instead of originals), citation padding (naming studies that are hard to find), or the use of AI or ghostwriters to draft content without human verification. Reporting here cannot confirm which mechanism was used on the specific "average penis size" page because the provided sources do not inspect that page’s references or editorial logs [3] [1].
7. Alternative explanations and limits of the available reporting
An alternative, supported by the site's own statements, is that MyIntimacy intentionally aggregates and summarizes third-party research for a general audience and relies on affiliate links for sustainability; that model can produce imperfect citations without deliberate fabrication [1] [2]. Importantly, none of the sources supplied directly demonstrates that the "average penis size" article references fictional sources, and the site’s public policies and pages do not include audit trails or editorial transparency that would let independent reviewers confirm or refute fabrication on that specific page [1] [3].