I'm with Prince LeRon about the scinetific method and the misleading phrasing of the article. It's about reconstructive surgery and the overall aethstetics. It only has a cursory relation to the beauty of the average man's party bits. And only in this space can a cis straight male can talk the appeal a "man's party bits" and not get strange looks.
The problem with these type of articles is that they dissect the scientific study to their liking. The scientific study says absolutely nothing about a perfect penis. There was never a perfect penis poll. The whole goal of the study was to determine how did women gage surgically repaired penises. They basically used twenty men penises(10 "normal", 10 surgically repaired) and had women rate the importance of different aspects a penis. What makes the study work is the fact that the women thought that all the penises were surgically repaired. The ratings would was to test whether or not the woman noticed the difference. The first statement of the author's discussion segment is that "The present research showed that there is no single penile aspect that is essential for the evaluation of penile appearance." People have just taken one table and ran with it. The scientific study is on point, it's the people writing these articles that are fucking up.