Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sex With a Large Penis' started by B_cloudy_rebel1982, Feb 5, 2008.
so what do yall think?
At some point there was a consensus on this site, that 8" was the minimum to be called hung. Maybe that means 7 " is big? It's significantly bigger than average.
Common consensus is that average length is about 5.5in. I'd say 6.5in and above is big and I'd agree with NJQT that 8 is hung
Other folks have their own scales to go by and none have authority beyond that person. I also liked a comment that someone made a while ago that 6 to 9 inches is big/hung and beyond 9 inches is a dong with all of the pros and cons that come along with it!
That's bullshit, because fatness is even more important. I recently sucked off a Puerto Rican with about 7 inches, but with fantastic fatness and giant balls. This whole site pays almost no attention to balls. What rot.
well i am about 5 inches flacid and 8.25 hard and about 6.5 around.
6 inches is not big :rofl: it's slightly bigger than average but nothing to write home about.
As a girth loving gal I am inclined to agree. The OP specifically inquired as to what length was considered big. However, a man who is 5x6 is of no interest to me. He's gotta be packing length and girth. :wink:
That's hung. :wink:
so why do so many consider 7" big but 6" "nothing to write home about".
is there really that noticable a difference between those sizes??
I would say that once your out and over the normal boundaries for most guys (6-7" in length) then you are big in length. Id go anything 7.5"+ would be considered as a big long penis and will encounter more women who will comment on it accordingly.
.1" is enough difference!
Dont we think its about time we had a proper scale for measuring willies, xinches long doesnt really say much x by y inches for length and girth is a little better but leaves a little to be desired. Maybe there needs to be a new SI unit or maybe something like the bowfort scale (wind) or richter scale (earthquakes) and who better qualified to devise such a system than the nice people of LPSG over to you....
Shouldn't it be
How long is large?
As this ain't BPSG
Like the pink (brings a little colour to such con-text-ual meaning :smile: )
Some have suggested volume but it didn't appear to speak(I mean type) volumes.
I once sucked a guy in Central Park about 25 years ago who may have been no more than 5 inches, but a Latino who was much longer couldn't stop sucking him till I almost pushed him away. Then I could see why: You could barely get him in your mouth, he was so fat. I've never seen another like this where the length didn't matter at all, but this was unforgettable, and I got the cum. I've also sucked 12 inch dicks at least once (and a fair number of 10 and 11 inchers) who were fat, but even they weren't as fat as this guy's. Now a 9-inch skinny dick I would NOT love, either in my mouth or up my ass. I fuckin' love dick, theirs and mine. And fatness is the most important feature, although long and fat is almost always the best. If fat, I make little difference between 7" and 10", both of which I've had big mouthfuls of recently, and the 7 incher was easily as satisfying as the 10 incher--and the 7 incher's balls were at least 8 times as big as the 10 incher's. Plus the 7 incher had the most delicious Puerto Rican cum I've ever drunk.
oook there buddy
it's entirely subjective and arbitrary. it's not like terms like "big" versus "hung" have any empirical or absolute value. hell, someone could invert the two in their own personal system where "hung" is smaller than "big." it's like arguing at what height someone is tall. well, if they're taller than average maybe...but an inch taller? two? six? where's the line? and hell, even the "average" is always shifting around! depending on which study you read, at seven inches i'm anywhere from just above average to three inches over!
don't look for definitive scales to define your "size." the only people who can do that are the only people it genuinely matters to...you and whoever the hell you're sharing your dick with.
I've been called hung before, I've been called big, and I'm sure I have been viewed as above average on here too.
Each person has their different views on what those words mean. I'm just happy to have those words used to describe me.
We've been all around and up and down this one before. Yes, it's all relative in one sense. But, reckoning the 'average' length at around 6", I guess it would be fair to say that 7"+ is 'big', 8"+ 'very big', and 9"+ 'huge".
Rice and chicken? No, but perhaps rice and beans, with a chaser of rum.
As others have pointed out, this is way too subjective to have a definitive answer. In most cases, your partner is going to see you as being 'big' if you are either bigger than most or all of their previous partners, or a challenge to manage in whatever act they are attempting with you, or both. That could happen with a 6 1/2 incher or a 9 incher.
To me it makes no sense to try to say there is a cut-off point to 'big' or 'hung'. Take a look at a quarter inch on a ruler. A guy with 6 7/8" is not going to be discernibly different to another guy with 7 1/8" unless measured or compared side-by-side.