mimimum size to consider it big

[frizzle]

Where did I contradict myself? I was explaining how I view what sizes I consider to be in which categories.

I absolutely do not consider "average" to equal medium or big. To me "Average" is Code for Small.

When a guy says he's Average he's telling me he's Small.

Since most guys are indeed "Average" most guys are Small.

I suppose I could further extend my breakdown and say that anything 5 inches and under is Very Small and anything 3.5 inches and under is Tiny.

Well the fact is big means larger then average and as the average is beween 5-7 inches, anything smaller is small and anything larger is large.

 

[Scott8361]

To be considered "big" is not just a matter of length but girth has to be considered as well.

I think even a 6" penis can be considered "big" if it is very thick (over 6" in girth).

I think a 7" penis is NOT big if it is thin in girth (under 5" around).

I consider my own penis to be small even though it is a bit over 6" long because it is only 4.5" in girth.

A cock needs girth to be a great cock!

 

[SereneBlue]

Well the fact is big means larger then average and as the average is beween 5-7 inches, anything smaller is small and anything larger is large.

That is your definition and your categories, not mine. I don't see it is a 'fact'. Your opinion, yes. Objective Fact, no. Though I'll grant you assert it is a fact. I'll just agree to disagree with you on it's 'fact-ness'.

Again..nobody need agree with my scale. My scale is my own. I would never assert a perception as an Objective Fact as I don't see facts 'true-ness' being subject to majority vote. But these scales often are deemed 'fact' via majority vote however illogical I find that to be.

 

[johnlucas-1]

Well the fact is big means larger then average and as the average is beween 5-7 inches, anything smaller is small and anything larger is large.

Frizzle: a word of advice.

Never use the word "average". Averages are working computations based on a sample set of info.

INSTEAD, use the word "Medium".
It is actually more correct as a descriptive of an assigned size.
Think T-Shirts with Small Medium Large. S, M, L.
Think of how they used to label fountain drink containers with S, M, L.

You have to change your language in order to change your thinking. A lot of problem when it comes to viewing a situation is that your language colors your thinking process and you miss certain aspects that may give light to what you see.

Medium is not a euphemism for average. It is a CORRECTION.
This is not the case of Kermit the Frog saying I'm an Amphibian-American.
A frog is a frog. That is correct.

This is the case of Average not being the correct term for a fixed size. Averages move based on the data available. And the data is usually not complete anyhow.

Read my earlier post about total human penis size and see a whole new perspective.
Also don't take size descriptives as indicators of quality descriptives. That's another big mistake people make about size namings and the threat to egos people have if they fit a certain range or not. The size names only talk about purely the dimensions of the penis not its quality of usefulness.

John Lucas

 

[ruperty]

to confuse matters further, should we measure in volumes? there's not much of a change of getting a 3 inch penis with a 7 inch circumference is there? just like getting a 10 inch penis with a 4 inch circumference (i know, it's vague). so by measuring in volumes, would that not make it easier to catagorise penises into say a volume of 20 square inches so a penis with a maximum length of X and minimum circumference of X, as well as a minimum length of X and maximum circumference of X. I'm lost now, if anyone knows what the hell i just said, please continue!

 

[No_Strings]

to me 6'' - 7'' = average, 8'' - 9'' = Big, 10'' - 11'' = Huge

What about 7" - 8" and 9" - 10"?

 

[FitFemFan77]

Although studies would say that the average length is between 5 and 6 inches, then that would say a 7 inch is above average and then moves along the scale that were in other posts. 7-8 is big, 8-9 is large, 9-10 is huge, 10-11 is massive, 11 and up is blessed. I fall in at the 7 inch mark and probably stretch it just over that if really excited. Anything above that for me is just a wish. I wish I had 2 more inches. Everyone on the board that is larger, consider yourself genetically blessed. "A 2005 study found only 55% of men were satisfied with their penis size, whereas 85% of women said they were very satisfied with the size of their partner's penis, and only 6% of women rated their partner as smaller than average." (Lever, J., Frederick, D. A., Peplau, L. A. (2006). "Does Size Matter? Men’s and Women’s Views on Penis Size Across the Lifespan)

 

[66057]

Ok, here's the problem.

Let's assume we know how many people on Earth have certain dick sizes. (Half-joking, but seriously, everyone else is just throwing out their own random statistics everywhere.)

Let's assume that Sereneblue isn't a total moron, (hard, I know) and that 85% of men really DO have a "small penis." Let's define small.

1" - Micropenis. You are small. Sorry.
2"-3" - You got the shit end of the stick, smaller than the average.
4"-5" - Almost there! Almost average length!
5.5" - Ah! Just right! Medical Association Approved!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Sereneblue, since each of these lengths are far below 7", which is his/her cut off for an "Average Size," he/she is basically claiming that they are "Below Small." If that can make any sense to you.

Look at it this way. If this were true, you've got 85% of the male population being "small." That makes no sense at all. If 85% of all men are under 7" in dick length, you can bet your huge cock that they now CREATED an "AVERAGE" interval.

That means:

6" - Yes, bigger than average, but obviously not by much.
7" -50% bigger than the "average" 5.5" penis size, so at this point, you've got a big cock.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for the freaks. Where about 15% of the male population lies according to Sereneblue.

8" - Huge
9" - In porn industry
10" - Mutation.

11" - Yea, right.

Serene blue says that 9.1" is the minimum cutoff for the term "Big dick." That means, until you hit the 85th percentile of dick size in America, you are not big. That not only defies logistics, but the statistics Sereneblue threw out.

Why would you quote 5.5-6" as small, when you're using that measurement as a comparison to what "big" is?

Come on people. You want to know how to tell you've got a huge cock?

Go up to Mandingo, show him yours. If he laughs, you're small. If he says "nice," you're average, and if he tells you to come on the set and do his co-star, you're packing meat. Let's all try to love our own dicks for once.

 

[B_tallbig]

Ok, here's the problem.

Let's assume we know how many people on Earth have certain dick sizes. (Half-joking, but seriously, everyone else is just throwing out their own random statistics everywhere.)

Let's assume that Sereneblue isn't a total moron, (hard, I know) and that 85% of men really DO have a "small penis." Let's define small.

1" - Micropenis. You are small. Sorry.
2"-3" - You got the shit end of the stick, smaller than the average.
4"-5" - Almost there! Almost average length!
5.5" - Ah! Just right! Medical Association Approved!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Sereneblue, since each of these lengths are far below 7", which is his/her cut off for an "Average Size," he/she is basically claiming that they are "Below Small." If that can make any sense to you.

Look at it this way. If this were true, you've got 85% of the male population being "small." That makes no sense at all. If 85% of all men are under 7" in dick length, you can bet your huge cock that they now CREATED an "AVERAGE" interval.

That means:

6" - Yes, bigger than average, but obviously not by much.
7" -50% bigger than the "average" 5.5" penis size, so at this point, you've got a big cock.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for the freaks. Where about 15% of the male population lies according to Sereneblue.

8" - Huge
9" - In porn industry
10" - Mutation.

11" - Yea, right.

Serene blue says that 9.1" is the minimum cutoff for the term "Big dick." That means, until you hit the 85th percentile of dick size in America, you are not big. That not only defies logistics, but the statistics Sereneblue threw out.

Why would you quote 5.5-6" as small, when you're using that measurement as a comparison to what "big" is?

Come on people. You want to know how to tell you've got a huge cock?

Go up to Mandingo, show him yours. If he laughs, you're small. If he says "nice," you're average, and if he tells you to come on the set and do his co-star, you're packing meat. Let's all try to love our own dicks for once.

yea according to her my dick is average . she says normal size to her is 8 inches iam 8x6 . size perception is a relative thing but the truth is that 8 inches is 2 top percent of population . maybe she is a lucky one that all guys she have sex have a minimum of 8 inches

 

[Stephie]

What about 7" - 8" and 9" - 10"?

to get technical 6.0 yo 7.9 is average 8.0.9.9 is big thats just hot I see it for myself yes other think different does that clear it better?

 

[Calboner]

I would say starting at about 9.1 inches would be big. 7-9 inches is medium. anything under that is definitely small. I'd say about 85% of the male population fall in the small category.

This is like saying that any man under six and a half feet tall is short. You can give the words "big" and "small" some idiosyncratic private meaning if you want to—you can say that for you any dick under twelve inches long is "short" if you want to—but don't expect other people to take seriously anything that you say, and don't be surprised if they consider you an idiot.

This thread suffers from the same malady as other threads of this type: mixing mathematical terms like "average" with subjective terms like "big", and subsequent incoherence.

Actually, I think it's worse than that: people use the term "average" itself at one moment in its proper statistical sense and at another moment in a subjective sense.

6.2308"x5.4966"

Oh, pfui! Anyone with an IQ of at least 159 knows that "big" starts at 6.2307", not 6.2308".

From root to 2-plus is Category 1 = X-Small
From 3 to 4-plus is Category 2 = Small
From 5 to 6-plus is Category 3 = Medium-Small
From 7 to 8-plus is Category 4 = Medium
From 9 to 10-plus is Category 5 = Medium-Large
From 11 to 12-plus is Category 6 = Large
From 13 to 14-plus is Category 7 = X-Large

This is absurd, if only because it presumes the existence of penises of lengths ranging well over 10 inches. As someone posted in another thread, the over-ten-inch penis is rather like Bigfoot: lots of people claim to have seen it, and photos keep getting presented, but the photos never give convincing evidence of any such size. Maybe there are such animals, but the further you get beyond ten inches, the more dubious the claim. You don't need a category that goes over 11 inches. If you had divided things up with a more realistic range, the assignment of terms would have been quite different.

Ampblaster's system seems to me the most realistic posted so far.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Actually, I think it's worse than that: people use the term "average" itself at one moment in its proper statistical sense and at another moment in a subjective sense.

It's surprising how many people use words in debate without knowing (or being indifferent or cavalier to) what they mean.

And incidentally, you immediately did the same thing, in your response to johnlucas-1 (attempting to apply your own statistical criteria to someone else's subjective scale).

 

[Calboner]

It's surprising how many people use words in debate without knowing (or being indifferent or cavalier to) what they mean.

And incidentally, you immediately did the same thing, in your response to johnlucas-1 (attempting to apply your own statistical criteria to someone else's subjective scale).

Not at all. John does not present his scale as a subjective one but as an equal mathematical division of "the full range of sizes." I quoted only the scale that he derives and not the argument for it because his post was so long. I say that the division is unrealistic because the range that is assumed is unrealistic.

 

[Drifterwood]

Well the OP had nothing to do with average - it was rather about minimum size to consider big, and that is surely a subjective thing.

Anyone who ignores girth when talking about size, doesn't really know shit about cock.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Not at all. John does not present his scale as a subjective one but as an equal mathematical division of "the full range of sizes." I quoted only the scale that he derives and not the argument for it because his post was so long. I say that the division is unrealistic because the range that is assumed is unrealistic.

John may not know what he's talking about either, of course. However, his scale is still a subjective one - he's applied labels to size ranges based on what he considers each range to be without benefit of medical studies or surveys (apparently). It's inherently subjective. And maybe it isn't realistic, but that isn't the point. You're trying to apply statistical reality to someone else's subjective scale. It's like asking "how long is orange?".

This is why debating here gets so tedious - so many people here don't understand what they're saying, let alone the responses they get.

 

[Extremecummer]

Lots of factors here. The main problem remains: WHAT IS AN ACCURATE MEASUREMENT? I agree that, if measured the medical/contest way (top side, from pubic hair to end slit) anything over legit 7 is big. Actually, anyone with a very THICK 6.5 is large, considering that the majority of men have 5.5 or less. And, over 8, therefore, is large. Over 9 is huge.
Take RALPH WOODS for example. He is tall and thin and his cock is hung on him in a very prominent way. So, angle, position, thickness, comparison to body all come into play.
The only true way to compare cocks, as is done at some contests, is through a very thin (sheet of metal) glory hole, where all you see are cock and balls and body type, size, height, age, etc., play no factor in the measurement or perception. Dennis

 

[jh818]

Medically speaking

Small = less than 5.5
Medium = 5.5-6.5
Large = 6.6 - 7.9
Extra large = 8.0+

 

[nicenycdick]

I agree. As long as the 7" is nice and thick I wouldn't throw it back.

Although I have been told that I am big, I really don't compare to some of the monsters here...but I can confidently say that I have a very nicely shaped cock...hence the name. And I think (and hope, hope, hope!) that nice-looking matters, as well.

 

[Blocko]

I'm going to say anything from 5" - 6.5" is "average" length, anything above that is big. Girth I'm going to say anything from 4"-5" is average, anything above that is big. I'm mainly going on statistics and having actually looked into this outside LSPG (this site got me interested in trying to find the truth of the matter, as it seems like an un-answered question).

Now, I'm fairly sure this is a controversial opinion, so I'd like to argue for it.

First, a point I'd like to put forwards is that LPSG is a lovely site (one of my favorites!) but there is a reality disruption field when it comes to the size of male genitals (balls included, hah!). The truth of the matter is that people here (not all) often have very skewed perceptions.

To those who put 8-plus in a "medium" category, my opinion is that you've really shifted into some sort of self-justified fantasy land. Find me a scientifically attested 14" penis, or even a reliably attested measurement. I've taken a visual forensics unit (yay for uni electives!) and really, when it gets to 14" up against your body, you're talking about a penis that reliably reaches past your own sternum when you're sitting down.

Instead, have a look at the following graph:
Imageenis percentile.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The study wasn't perfect, that's for sure... but if anything it's on the high side. Yet, it shows that if you have a 7" penis, you're already statistically the biggest in a group of 20 men! Even 6.5" and you're still the biggest in a group of 10. A lot of guys here who get called big are actually 6.5" or 7" (even though they say they're much bigger). This becomes an internalized lie, people rely on these numbers so much they come to believe them.

A lot of people listen to their partners when it comes to size; the 1 in 10 6.5" becomes an 8", the 1 in 20 7" becomes a 9" then as well. Search on an adult internet dating site by penis size and you'll find that it's what every guy is saying he's packing. Look how many times on this board you see an actual larger guy having his number inflated hugely by a partner.

Another way to put it in perspective, Peter North's well attested size is 8.5 x 6. Are these guys seriously saying that Peter North's penis is medium sized?

If you actually look at scientifically done medical studies, the numbers are lower than the lifestyles by far, *especially* in girth, where a lot of men are thought to self-select themselves from studies. Some urology studies actually put the average girth *below* 4" for an erect penis. Makes you feel lucky, doesn't it?

If anyone wants a better reality check, some of Madame Zora's (and others) posts into the statistics on penis size will really put things in perspective.

 

[wankaholic]

Medically speaking

Small = less than 5.5
Medium = 5.5-6.5
Large = 6.6 - 7.9
Extra large = 8.0+

lol, I like those stats :biggrin1:
If anyone asks from now on, I'll say I'm extra large <whispering>jh818 said so<whispering>

Seriously...If relative size is to do with percentages there's obviously some kind of graphical curve, with a falloff. So wouldn't average cover a wider diversity of sizes, as opposed to people who are considered big or hung?

Mabe I'm looking at this wrong.

edit --> Blocko. I was writing when you posted...

When I mentioned a graph, I hadn't seen Blocko's post.

Ignore this one my questions answered