Big feet and penis men
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Large, reputable studies and multiple reviews find no practical link between shoe (or foot) size and penis size: a 2002 British study of 104 men and a 2020s meta-analysis of 15,521 men concluded there is no strong evidence that foot size predicts penile length [1] [2]. Earlier small studies sometimes reported weak correlations, but researchers consistently said foot size would not serve as a reliable estimator of penis length [3] [4].
1. The headline: the myth versus the data
The popular belief “big feet = big penis” is a cultural meme, not a scientific axiom. Multiple contemporary pieces reporting on empirical work — including a 2002 St Mary’s Hospital study and a later synthesis of 17 papers covering 15,521 men — report either no correlation or only a very weak one that is not useful for prediction [1] [2]. Journalists and fact-checkers summarize the consensus: available evidence does not support using shoe size to estimate genital size [5] [6].
2. What the studies actually measured
Clinical studies that refute the myth measured penis length carefully (pubic bone to tip, compressing pubic fat) and recorded shoe size or foot length alongside height and other body measures [2]. The larger meta‑analysis pooled standardized measurements from many studies to calculate averages and test correlations; it found no strong linkage between penile dimensions and shoe size, height, BMI, or other external markers [2]. The 2002 London study of 104 men likewise reported average stretched length ~13 cm and average shoe size EU 43, but could not draw a correlation between them [1].
3. Where weak signals appeared — and why they don’t matter
Some older, small-sample studies (for example a 1993 Canadian sample of 63 men) noted a slight association between foot size and penis length, but authors explicitly warned the relationship was so weak it’s impractical for estimation [3] [7]. Media summaries emphasize that even when a statistical link appears, effect sizes are tiny and measurement or sampling bias can produce spurious correlations [4] [6]. In short: statistical significance in a small study does not translate to predictive usefulness.
4. Alternative anatomical correlates and complexity
A handful of studies explored other body ratios: some reported a possible link between height and penile length, and isolated reports suggested finger‑length ratios might correlate in specific samples [4] [2]. But larger syntheses still concluded body part measurements generally do not offer a reliable proxy for genital dimensions [2]. The biological development of genitalia is influenced by genetics, hormones, and developmental factors; simple one‑to‑one rules are unsupported in current literature [8].
5. Cultural persistence and the agendas behind it
The “big feet” trope persists because it’s simple, memorable, and reinforced in locker‑room and popular culture discourse; publications and advertisers sometimes exploit the idea to sell attention or products [3] [9]. Health and sex‑education voices in reporting stress that sexual performance and satisfaction are unrelated to these measurements and that the myth can fuel anxiety and stigma [4] [6].
6. Limitations in the reporting and open questions
Available sources note methodological limitations: small samples in older papers, reliance on self‑reported measures in some surveys, and underrepresentation of diverse populations in many studies [3] [2]. Sources do not provide exhaustive demographic breakdowns for every dataset; therefore, claims about all populations should be read cautiously. Where data are missing, available sources do not mention specific subgroup analyses or definitive genetic mechanisms beyond general statements [2] [8].
7. Practical takeaway for readers
Don’t judge or assume based on shoe size. Major reviews and clinical studies say shoe/foot size is not a reliable predictor of penis size and should not be used for estimation [1] [2]. Reporters and fact‑checkers (Snopes, Men’s Health summaries) echo that the idea is a common misconception rather than a scientifically grounded rule [5] [1].
Sources referenced in text: Men’s Health summary of the 2002 St Mary’s Hospital study [1]; cultural/history and review pieces [3] [4]; Snopes fact‑check and media summaries [5] [6] [10]; Metro and Man of Many reporting on similar studies [7] [6]; large synthesis/meta‑analysis coverage in Science/AAAS [2]; general genetics/context piece [8].