Difference between big and huge?

All body parts technically have this, since if you are malnutritioned(is that a word?) during puberty or growth then your body wont have the nutrients needed to grow to its full size. This applies to all body parts.
On the other hand, as long as you have enough nutrients nothing should stop your body parts growing to their full size.

A critical growing stage is a point in which if growth and development doesn't occur, it will not the rest of one's lifetime: thus, critical. My questions as if COCKS have one, and when if yes? I'll look it up...
 
i lot of people here should know more those differences before saying they have a huge one when in fact is a normal size.
 
Volume index = 21.06 so huge starting at 21. ( 1 on 769 )
An ideal penis for 87.6% ( huge is sometimes to much for some women )

Correction.
Correct measurement of non bone pressed is standing up, holding the erected penis as much horizontal to the floor, measuring on top from base to tip. (without pressure to the bone, only visable shaft will be measured)
Girth measurement - midshaft - and wrapping around the measuring tape somewhere. ( end minus begin = girth ) Not starting at zero, but where-ever. Tight. ( with an hard erection no problem )
Therefore a correction as I see your pics.
NBPL 7.0" x 5.95" midshaft girth gives a volume index of 19.33 which is big.
Now for 95.4% an ideal penis.

I'm currently at 7.75 NBP as I've gained even more weight than before.


Your calaculation categories are too broad. Big is 1 in 6, but the next level up is 1 in 769. I'm off from being huge a smidget, but there's a lot of variance in these categories -- 6.3 is going to look a whole lot different than 7.75. What's the statistical likelihood of 7.75 NBP? It's surely not 1 in 6.
 
My question is, when people are doing the math for %'s...
It seems people take the RAW stats for girth, and raw stats for length. Are not a lot of the guys with long dicks also the ones with thick dicks?. That being said, the data gets skewed when taken as length only, or girth only.
 
Well, have we discussed the use of significant figures? Integers or Whole numbers?
What precision +/- .1" or +/- .01" ?
Are your rulers calibrated back to an ANSI or SAE standard? Recall cycle?
Standard atmospheric conditions? (Or "Brady cock")
Latitude using GPS?

As far as I am concerned, we got a whole Lotta negative cocks out there guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigDee3
7600861-1623035608-daad47f7ba929f7a19f3927348b7ae86.jpg
7939551-1625975377-49c45fbee0f4590ef13830362a765404.jpg

Well, mine's 7.5 fully erect BPEL with 5.1 on girth. Most of the comments said I'm big or very big and some said I'm huge but for me, I'm just a average guy, comparing with most of the cocks here. So, answering the question, I think I'm average to big
 
My cock is 8.3 inches bone pressed, but more likely 7.8 inches non bone pressed. So in a group of 1500 people, I'm the only one sporting eight inches if half of them are women?

My girth is only 5.1 inches at the thickest point so not all long cocks are thick. Isn't it more likely for a long cock to be of average girth? Girthy cocks are rare. My cock would be huge if it would be thick, 8x5.5+ would be nice to have.

this is all very flattering to read!! I am just a bit over 8” BP and 5.8” girth, so I guess I qualify in this definition of huge?!?