TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: I can make my penis bigger

Fact Check: I can make my penis bigger

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Can You Really Make Your Penis Bigger? An In-Depth Analysis ## Introduction The claim "I can make my penis bigger" is one that resonates with many...

Can You Really Make Your Penis Bigger? An In-Depth Analysis

Introduction

The claim "I can make my penis bigger" is one that resonates with many men, often fueled by societal pressures and personal insecurities regarding penis size. This assertion encompasses a wide range of methods, from surgical procedures to non-invasive techniques, each with varying degrees of effectiveness and safety. This article aims to explore the validity of this claim, examining the available methods, their effectiveness, and the associated risks.

Background

Penis size has long been a topic of concern for many men, leading to a booming industry dedicated to penis enlargement. A 2020 review highlighted that "the fear that your penis looks too small or is too small to satisfy your partner during sex is common" [6]. This anxiety often drives men to seek out various enhancement methods, which can be broadly categorized into surgical and non-surgical options.

Surgical Methods

Surgical options for penis enlargement include procedures designed to increase both length and girth. Common surgical techniques involve:

  • Suspensory Ligament Release: This procedure cuts the ligament that attaches the penis to the pubic bone, allowing more of the penis to hang outside the body. However, it does not increase the actual length of the erect penis and can lead to complications such as instability during erection [2][4].

  • Fat Injection: This method involves injecting fat harvested from another part of the body into the penis to increase girth. While this can provide some increase in size, it carries risks of complications, including uneven results and the potential for significant reabsorption of the injected fat [3][4].

  • Penile Augmentation Surgery: Various techniques exist, including grafting and the use of dermal fillers. However, these methods are often controversial and can result in severe complications, including infections and erectile dysfunction [8][9].

Non-Surgical Methods

Non-surgical methods include a variety of products and techniques, such as:

  • Pills and Supplements: Marketed as "male enhancement" products, these often contain unproven ingredients and lack scientific support for effectiveness [3][4]. The FDA has warned against many of these products, citing potential harmful ingredients [6].

  • Vacuum Pumps: These devices create a vacuum that draws blood into the penis, temporarily increasing its size. While they can be effective for treating erectile dysfunction, they do not provide a permanent increase in size and can cause damage if used improperly [2][4].

  • Jelqing and Stretching Exercises: Techniques like jelqing involve manual manipulation to increase blood flow. However, there is no scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness, and they can lead to injuries such as scarring and pain [3][4].

Analysis

The effectiveness of penis enlargement methods varies significantly, and many claims lack scientific backing. According to the American Urological Association, "none of these methods work" for cosmetic purposes, and many carry significant risks [2][4].

Surgical Effectiveness

Surgical methods can yield some results, particularly for men with medical conditions like micropenis. However, the risks associated with surgery are substantial. A systematic review noted that "the results of invasive and non-invasive strategies remain uncertain," with many techniques supported only by low-quality evidence [1][9]. The complications can be severe, including permanent erectile dysfunction and penile deformity [6][8].

Non-Surgical Effectiveness

Non-surgical methods are generally considered ineffective. For example, a 2020 review concluded that "there is no proven way to increase penis size, and some methods may have adverse effects" [4]. The lack of scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of pills, pumps, and exercises is a significant concern, as many men may invest time and money into these methods without any real benefit.

Evidence

The evidence surrounding penis enlargement is mixed, with many studies indicating that most men seeking enhancement already have a penis size within the normal range. A 2014 study found that the average erect penis measures approximately 13.12 cm (5.16 inches) [6]. Furthermore, many men overestimate the average size, contributing to their anxiety [4][5].

Summary of Findings

  1. Surgical Methods: Can provide some increase in size but carry significant risks and complications. The American Urological Association does not endorse these procedures for purely cosmetic reasons [2][3][4].

  2. Non-Surgical Methods: Generally ineffective, with many products lacking scientific validation. Techniques like jelqing can lead to injury rather than enhancement [3][4][6].

  3. Psychological Factors: Many men may suffer from "small penis anxiety," leading them to pursue unnecessary procedures. A psychological evaluation is crucial for those considering enhancement [1][9].

Conclusion

The claim "I can make my penis bigger" is partially true, as there are methods available that can result in an increase in size. However, the effectiveness and safety of these methods vary widely. Surgical options can provide results but come with significant risks, while non-surgical methods largely lack scientific support and can lead to injury.

Men concerned about their penis size should consider consulting a healthcare professional to discuss their feelings and explore safe, effective options. Ultimately, understanding that most men have a penis size within the normal range may alleviate some of the anxiety surrounding this issue.

References

  1. Falagario, U. G., et al. (2024). Techniques for Penile Augmentation Surgery: A Systematic Review of Surgical Outcomes, Complications, and Quality of Life. PMC. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11123079/
  2. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Penis enlargement. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_enlargement
  3. Mayo Clinic. (2022). Penis-enlargement products: Do they work? Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/sexual-health/in-depth/penis/art-20045363
  4. Medical News Today. (2023). Does penis enlargement work? Methods and effectiveness. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323688
  5. Business Insider. (2023). Penis Enlargement: 3 Methods That Work and 4 That Don't. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/health/sex-relationships/penis-enlargement
  6. WebMD. (2023). Penis Enlargement: Does It Work? Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/men/features/penis-enlargement-does-it-work
  7. Healthline. (2023). Penis Stretching: 5 Exercises for Length and Girth. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/penis-stretching
  8. Cleveland Clinic. (2023). Penis Enlargement Surgery: How It Works, Pros & Cons. Retrieved from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/23530-penis-enlargement-surgery
  9. Carson, C. C. (2023). Penile enhancement: men who want more. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tre.931

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: U.S. President Donald Trump stated on October 2023 that he believes Israel and Iran will make a peace deal.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: U.S. President Donald Trump stated on October 2023 that he believes Israel and Iran will make a peace deal.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: U.S. President Donald Trump stated on October 2023 that he believes Israel and Iran will make a peace deal.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida warned that he is prepared to 'make an example of' any anti-Trump protesters who engage in rioting.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida warned that he is prepared to 'make an example of' any anti-Trump protesters who engage in rioting.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida warned that he is prepared to 'make an example of' any anti-Trump protesters who engage in rioting.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The national security agreement between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel requires Nippon to make $11 billion in new investments by 2028.
True

Fact Check: The national security agreement between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel requires Nippon to make $11 billion in new investments by 2028.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The national security agreement between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel requires Nippon to make $11 billion in new investments by 2028.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: On June 15, 2023, Trump stated on Truth Social that he believes Iran and Israel will make a deal, similar to the deal he facilitated between India and Pakistan.
Needs Research

Fact Check: On June 15, 2023, Trump stated on Truth Social that he believes Iran and Israel will make a deal, similar to the deal he facilitated between India and Pakistan.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: On June 15, 2023, Trump stated on Truth Social that he believes Iran and Israel will make a deal, similar to the deal he facilitated between India and Pakistan.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks