We connect faces with some attributes, research has shown. Specifically attributes that make up the OCEAN (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) framework.

Given that, and the rise in the phenomenon of men sending dick pics to potential partners (sexting, dating apps and the pandemic all have driven this behaviour), Brooks and Reysen have gone on and researched what recipients of dick pics make of the men sending those. Their paper was recently published in the journal, Sexuality and Culture.

Now regular readers know that this column loves opining on new research, but one wonders whether it is fair to call this research.

They showed 100 women 3-D visualisations of penises to correlate their perception of people’s personalities on the basis of penis length, girth and pubic hair (untrimmed, trimmed and shaven.) And then did a whole bunch of maths to present what the women gleaned as the penis-owners’ personality trained.

What, if one may ask, is going on here?

If people are asked to choose from attributes (OCEAN) looking at penis types, they will indeed choose something. It’s not even a question of statistical significance. There has to be a viable hypothesis before the maths is brought in, and there does not seem to be any.

In the discussion towards the end of the paper they do mention the fact that all of this is based on the assumption that if faces are associated with some traits than penises can be as well. To this writer it seems blindingly obvious that seeing a face and seeing a penis (specially a stranger’s) are completely different experiences, and therefore inferences from one do not necessarily correspond to inference from the other.

Of course the phenomenon of sending dick pics needs to be researched, but dear Brooks and dear Reyser, this is not on.

If you wish to indeed read the paper, you can find it here.