mimimum size to consider it big

nhguy78

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Posts
1,010
Media
49
Likes
4,329
Points
543
Age
45
Location
Boston, New Hampshire, US
Verification
View
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
Perhaps LPSG should have some established standards of size based on statistical data. If someone should be interested in validating the research, I propose categories similar to the descriptions below, along with the accompanying size ranges determined by the validated research:
Micro
Mini
Small
Intermediate
Average
Big
Large
Huge
Gigantic
Enormous

What are everyone's thoughts on this proposal?
Indy
We would need to have equal categories above and below the average or else average doesn't mean anything. So here's my proposal:

Micro - <2" erect
Mini - 2-3"
Small - 3-4.5"
Average - 4.5-5.5"
Big - 5.5-7"
Huge - 7-8"
Enormous/gigantic - 8+"
 

Indelicate

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
3,069
Media
15
Likes
46,105
Points
543
Location
United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
We would need to have equal categories above and below the average or else average doesn't mean anything. So here's my proposal:

Micro - <2" erect
Mini - 2-3"
Small - 3-4.5"
Average - 4.5-5.5"
Big - 5.5-7"
Huge - 7-8"
Enormous/gigantic - 8+"
That's a great basis for us to work from, man!
It's what I meant, calculate a size range for each size description. Sorry that point wasn't clear before.

Whichever format works best and approved by the membership, that's how the standards for the site should be set.

Thank you!
Indy
 
  • Like
Reactions: nhguy78

Shepardson

Superior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Posts
2,733
Media
0
Likes
3,894
Points
208
Gender
Male
Unfortunately, the problem I think you'd face with that is the same one we see all over this forum- There is absolutely NO connection between the penis sizes guys claim, throw around, estimate, or hear about, and real life measurable inches. Now, if you made people decide on percentile ranges they considered big,huge,etc., with no mention of inch values, that might work. They could then be matched up with sizes from known valid studies. I have a feeling most people would not agree with the result though, and within a couple days, you'd have page after page of people chiming in with some humble brag crap like "Wow, I never knew I was in the monster dick category!".
 
  • Like
Reactions: nhguy78

nhguy78

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Posts
1,010
Media
49
Likes
4,329
Points
543
Age
45
Location
Boston, New Hampshire, US
Verification
View
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
The thing i noticed from reading this thread is that guys compare or share relativity. He's tiny because I'm this size. Or she's had bigger so she thinks I'm small. That's not really what this effort is about. Quite the opposite i assume. Cold hard facts that can't deepfake.

Validating the "research" could be done with a RAW file i suppose. I don't think any photoshop attempt can be saved a RAW file.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shepardson

HMS

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Cammer
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
5,228
Media
76
Likes
20,747
Points
408
Location
Brazil
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
We would need to have equal categories above and below the average or else average doesn't mean anything. So here's my proposal:

Micro - <2" erect
Mini - 2-3"
Small - 3-4.5"
Average - 4.5-5.5"
Big - 5.5-7"
Huge - 7-8"
Enormous/gigantic - 8+"
That's a decent measure system, but you forgot to mention if is a BPEL method. Also you should add the girth measure system too
 
  • Like
Reactions: nhguy78 and B_er