RN
A photograph is not a measuring instrument, and a lens is much further from being one than most people assume.
This matters here more than in almost any other genre, because the entire category the original article belonged to is organised around an apparent quantity — and every element of how these scenes are shot exists to inflate that quantity. Not by trickery in the fake sense. By ordinary, well-understood camera craft that any cinematographer would recognise on sight.
Focal length has an opinion
The single largest factor is what lens is on the camera and how close it is.
A wide-angle lens used close to a subject exaggerates the difference in size between things at different distances from it. Whatever is nearest the front element gets dramatically larger relative to everything behind it. This is why a wide lens held near someone's face produces a comically large nose, and it is why estate agents photograph small rooms with one. The effect is not subtle and it is not an artefact — it is the defining behaviour of the focal length.
A long lens does the opposite. It compresses distance, flattens the difference between near and far, and renders relative sizes closer to how the eye judges them.
So the same subject, unchanged, photographed from two feet on a wide lens and from twelve feet on a long one, produces two images that a viewer would confidently describe as showing different sizes. Only one of them can be right, and neither of them is a measurement.
A frame with nothing to scale against
The second factor is that these shots are composed to remove references. Judging size in an image requires something of known dimension nearby to compare it to. Tight framing takes those away — no full body, no hand at a natural distance, no object of familiar size in the same plane. What is left is an image the viewer has to scale by assumption, and the assumption is supplied by the title.
Hands are the exception that proves it, which is why they appear in these shots so deliberately. A hand is the one reference nearly everyone can size intuitively, so where it sits in frame, and whose hand it is, does a great deal of work.
Casting is the other half
Apparent size is relational, so the cheapest way to change it is to change what it is next to. Casting for contrast — pairing performers with a marked difference in build or height — makes one part of the frame read as larger without anything about it changing. Any tube title pairing an adjective for small with an adjective for large is announcing a casting decision, not reporting an observation.
Point-of-view shooting extends the same principle. A camera held at eye level and close in mimics a first-person view while sitting nearer than an eye would, which is a wide-lens exaggeration presented as an honest perspective.
Which is why the numbers in the titles are decoration
Given all of the above, the figures that appear in these titles were not produced by anyone measuring anything. They are written by uploaders, they compete with the numbers in neighbouring titles, and they inflate for the same reason prices end in .99. There is no verification step anywhere in the chain, no incentive to be accurate, and no way for a viewer to check.
Treat the number as part of the thumbnail. It is chosen the same way and for the same purpose.
About what the original article actually was
Most of that page was not about anatomy at all. It was a list of clips indexed by the race of the male performers, written in the vocabulary that goes with it, which is a marketing category the industry built and has been arguing about ever since. That is a real subject and it is covered properly elsewhere on this site rather than reprinted here — see what the interracial category is and where it came from, and how sites built on it are structured.
The clip list is not reproduced. None of those uploads could be located or matched to a release, and the descriptions attached to them were keyword copy about the bodies of identifiable working people.
The practically useful part
If you came here comparing yourself to something, the thing you were comparing against was constructed by a lens choice, a camera distance, a casting decision and a title written by a stranger. That is not a standard. On the underlying question, which is a real one people worry about, the piece on size handles it directly.
And if it is the genre you want rather than the argument, the producers who specialise in it maintain their own catalogues, where at least the credits are attached by someone who was there.