SirBillybob

No worries. It is urban myth and the investigators themselves state that their findings need to be substantiated. I wouldn’t run out to invest in large-size condom manufacturing just yet.😉
It is much easier and faster to dismiss these research findings as specious than to undertake the onerous task of a similar investigation. 

One specific mean length difference within the data set across the dozens of studies in the analysis is 11.1 cm (4.4 inches)!! The much higher value is situated within a later decade research project. This difference is equivalent to 5.9 standard deviations from the widely accepted global mean. 98% of adult men fall within 2 standard deviations. No sexologist or researcher with basic analytical skills would accept the legitimacy of such a vast difference. It is bullshit. Moreover, that particular computed difference is over 4 times the estimated temporal increase put forward by the investigators. There is something to be said for face validity and simple logic. Anybody with critical appraisal skills can see that this one methodological measurement flaw alone would skew results. 
There have been other convincing criticisms of the study methods, including the effect of greater prevalence of pubic bone press penis length measurement technique in more recent times. That approach is associated with greater length values, up to almost the temporal length difference reported in this study. It was not mentioned as a relevant factor and not controlled for in multivariate analysis. 
The investigators did not describe testing a null hypothesis of no difference. The most interesting finding would be a change that garnered attention; that bias ran through the article. What is also unknown is the breadth of manuscript peer review submissions and rejections prior to publication of a Stanford/Emory piece of work in the more obscure Korean educational entity journal. There are many high caliber periodicals within the field. 

No worries. It is urban myth and the investigators themselves state that their findings need to be substantiated. I wouldn’t run out to invest in large-size condom manufacturing just yet.😉
It is much easier and faster to dismiss these research findings as specious than to undertake the onerous task of a similar investigation. 

Unfortunately I was born before this started happening.

Considering that improvements in nutrition have led to increased average body size in areas of the world where males were traditionally malnourished, it should not be surprising that the size of their penises has increased somewhat proportionally for the whole population. However, I think we all are aware from experience that it is hard to predict most individuals' cock sizes based just on their body size, nor predict their body size just from the cock protruding through the glory hole.

Addendum:
In sum, not buying it. I’d put a sock in it.
The dynamics of differential between flaccid and erect length and girth, principly smooth muscle tissue relaxation, are not even a footnote.
The potential for increased qualitative [sic] efficacy of penile injections, given they were evidently employed for clinical setting measurement, is not mentioned.  Artificial tumescence does not translate to real world.

Some of us reside in metriculated regions. Otherwise, unmitigated growth will yield a newly emerging STD, foot-in-mouth disease.

Some of us reside in metriculated regions. Otherwise, unmitigated growth will yield a newly emerging STD, foot-in-mouth disease.

Some of us reside in metriculated regions. Otherwise, unmitigated growth will yield a newly emerging STD, foot-in-mouth disease.

Overall average flaccid length decreased proportionally considerably more than erection length increased when comparing past 3 decades. Therefore, counterintuitive large changes in the differential between flaccid and erect call into question the accuracy of measurement, notwithstanding that the cohorts for flaccid and erect measurement do not overlap entirely. 
Statistical measurement artefacts such as regression to the mean may explain this anomaly better than the hypotheses put forward. In the same way that flaccid length measurement may have naturalistically self-adjusting outlier values showing reduced difference between true and observed amounts over time, the more recent erect length values could similarly adjust downward going forward from current higher means, subsequently trending towards the earlier lower mean values, nullifying the observation of increase over the last decade compared to previous ones.
It also appears that erection length was predominantly measured by intracavernosal injection and, if not, the variation that would be expected by spontaneously solicited erections in a clinical as opposed to naturalistic arousal context could have been a factor. 

“I’ll just say I like the PUMP! Jock on.”
Despicably manipulative much? Evil vortex much? Who does that?!

That's what I was wondering.  If they're just asking, then the Stanford study is as reliable as a Grindr profile.  If they're measuring, how da heck do you get that job??

Grindr should have a feature to adjust for "confounders". 😝 Everyone claims to be 8 inches.

The growth will eventually stop.  A penis can't be more than 11 inches... Because then it becomes a foot!

I hope so, especially since the Fjord Probe was discontinued. 

In fact, I am surprised that the topic has not devolved to that of thread count investment considerations given prospective sperm counts deposited on bed sheets relative to the variable of booking deposits. 

Two ad photos; stolen from two different social media profiles. The Israeli is about 24, does not do porn. The ad is fake. English, Dutch, Russian. I wouldn’t be rushin’ into a booking even if I could go dutch with a few other suckers.

Yes, we are born to learn to be able to recognize the familiar and predictable. The unfamiliar evokes involuntary mental reaction and that is adaptive in many cases. Our central affective states are happy, sad, angry, anxious, surprise, revulsion. Note that the majority of affective adaptation exists in the more negative realm.
I think I was more startled when first aware of intact foreskin. As well, surprised and curious when as a young child comparing my genitalia to that of my sister plunked into the same bathwater. Then surprised about her later menstruation onset.
In your case perhaps it is harder to bury the lead: a kind of disoriented revulsion. First impressions tend to be strongly anchored. I will happily snack on dark dried raisins but I will never be persuaded to eat a slice of raisin pie, and I pick out and discard raisins from muffins and butter tarts. I guess I reacted poorly to the novel texture or I was nauseous for some unrelated reason. I have no problem with prunes or any other dried fruit in baking. 
We possess in common a seemingly irreversible and idiosyncratic revulsion not particularly amenable to alteration via more advanced cognitive processes. I’ll take mine, though, thank ye very much.

Physical and moral revulsion are emotional cousins but associated with different cognitive states and autonomic nervous system processing. If you are primed to categorize the phenomenon of idiosyncratic physical disgust in relation to an entity as evidence of sociopathy, based on your background experience with an individual in which your perception is already negatively oriented, then your moral indignation related to this one isolated example is no less a logical fallacy than his assuming that his subjective and protracted physical response, also anchored in context, categorically defines the entity as disgusting. (I did not detect such an assertion on his part.) This bias alone nullifies the argument that the isolated phenomenon exemplifies a social background priming the privilege of othering. 
The legitimacy of moral (eg, character, personality) judgement is no less arguable than the physically induced affective state of revulsion. We see that either may spontaneously manifest and reside on a continuum of alterability.

In fact, I am surprised that the topic has not devolved to that of thread count investment considerations given prospective sperm counts deposited on bed sheets relative to the variable of booking deposits. 

To be pedantic AF, I wasn't quoting him I was reporting what was said, so I was writing the word as I would always write it. If I had wanted to make a point about how Ford recorded what he had said I could have written 'color' and followed it with (sic) to indicate the non-standard (to me) spelling. But now I'm being silly, and that would be my defence in court! Now, back to deposits.

I had always understood that he said the word. If indeed he spelt the word, I am grateful for that additional snippet of information!

I remember it being claimed, probably apocryphally, that Henry Ford said of the Model T that you could have any colour you want, as long as it's black. His factory, his choice. That's why to this day all Ford cars are black.