Question To End The Size Debate?

[Knight]

I've been thinking this for a while now. This is open to everyone here, males, females, the hung, unhung and average-endowed guys.

Is it better to have too much or too little (penis)? You're too big and you have problems with penetration but you can more fully penetrate a woman. A smaller guy however, can get right in there, as deep as possible which is still fairly deep even at 5-6". He can wear regular underwear and is less likely to be objectified or thought as solely in terms of cock. Etc...

So what do you guys and gals think? It can be your own opinion or even ask your friends

 

[lokican]

So wait is the Poll asking is it better to have a cock that is to big compared to a cock that is to small or just below average? Because it would be a big disadvantge having a cock to big compared to a cock that is slightly below average, compare to one that is is 2-3 inches erect.

 

[Knight]

Yeah okay I was gonna leave that for you to decide too.

But lets say an average cock which is 6" long and 5" girth (at most) compared with 8" long and 6" around and bigger. Or wherever it becomes too much

 

[Donk]

Well, I went ahead and voted "too much," but I would add one refinement to the issue: namely, whether the question is about length or girth. I have always felt that excessive girth would be a bigger problem than excessive length. With extra length, you can just put it in as far as it will go and stop. I would much rather be too long to go all the way in than too short to achieve deep penetration. But if a penis is too thick to go in at all, then you have a real problem. All in all, I would rather have my 11"x6" penis than one that was much thicker or much shorter. (Basically, I love my penis the way it is, which is good )

 

[lapdog2001]

I voted too little, as many of the hugely hung here have mentioned the troubles they've had just getting to have sex at all. I'd rather be 'average' and fully capable of enjoying it, then being hung 10"+ and being turned down all the time.

I've mentioned it before, this site has made me appreciate my large, but not gigantic size. I've yet to fully experience deep throat, but I've been in to the hilt with every woman so far when it comes to intercourse. I cannot imagine not being able to do that.

LapDog :9 :9

 

[Knight]

Well since most penises seem to grow in proportion, take larger to mean longer and thicker or discuss them one at a time. If you are larger though I think word spreads quicker and you get more action? But the smaller guy could probably find a more meaningful relationship easier than someone who is unfortuntely hunted down only for their size

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Knight@Apr 21 2005, 09:16 PM

[post=303148]Quoted post[/post]​

Well I voted too much. But if I were getting to pick one out and order it. I would order one that is 6 and 1/2 inches long. It seems that this length never gets comments about being too big or too small.

But first on the agenda is having one that performs on command. Having one that wins the beauty pageant and won't get erect or won't come is no fun.

 

[13788]

gamma_phi: Too much. I don't have that much now so...

 

[blackwood]

Originally posted by Knight@Apr 22 2005, 02:16 AM
I've been thinking this for a while now. This is open to everyone here, males, females, the hung, unhung and average-endowed guys.

Is it better to have too much or too little (penis)? You're too big and you have problems with penetration but you can more fully penetrate a woman. A smaller guy however, can get right in there, as deep as possible which is still fairly deep even at 5-6". He can wear regular underwear and is less likely to be objectified or thought as solely in terms of cock. Etc...

So what do you guys and gals think? It can be your own opinion or even ask your friends

[post=303148]Quoted post[/post]​

Knight, I really can't compare experiences (I was never that small [2 - 3 inches] but I can fully support the idea that very large is very limiting, and time and patience consuming.

b.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

But if I were getting to pick one out and order it. I would order one that is 6 and 1/2 inches long. It seems that this length never gets comments about being too big or too small.

If I were going to pick one out and order it I would pick 8-8.5 length and 5.5 to 6.5 girth, (man, what a shopping trip that would be, huh?) so that gives me a bit of a problem when the question is:

But lets say an average cock which is 6" long and 5" girth (at most) compared with 8" long and 6" around and bigger. Or wherever it becomes too much

Call me crazy (or maybe I'm not clear on how the above quote relates to the question)but I think almost everyone here (sorry Freddie) would choose 8/6 over 6/5 although there is nothing wrong with either size at all and 6/5 IS above average. To me the question becomes more interesting when it's essentially, "Would you rather have two inches or twelve?" I've seen both and I think I might opt for the 12 (but I'd rather have the 8.5) but I have to say from talking to both guys, the guy with the 2" (who was a top but was physically incapable of penetration--that's gotta suck) actually had virtually no complaints, had a very active sex life and knew very well how to please himself (and me) while the guy I met with 12", who was also one of the most physically beautiful people I have ever seen, (this guy could easily become a model and could definitely be the KING of the porn world) had all sorts of self image problems, and basically had a lifetime of tales of frustrating sexual encounters.


edit: The 8/6 option appeals to me because those happen to be the approximate dimensions of the most beautiful cock I've ever seen and the only one where I was like, "Wow, I'd trade mine for that one in a second." I'm actually a more of a "bottom" but truly bi, and why tops want bottoms with big dicks is beyond me (the world really needs more guys like DMW, or at least I DO), but if I felt very comfortable in a relationship with a total top then the 2" would be just fine.

 

[Shelby]

While extra large certainly has visual appeal, being too long to achieve full penetration (grind pubic bones) would seem to limit one's ability to stimulate the clitoris during intercourse.

Not being a woman, I can't testify to this theory. Just my guess.

 

[B_UNKNOWN321]

Male ego being what it is, the choice I think would always be larger (within reason of course). Men somehow manage to adapt to being 6'6", having an IQ of 150 and earning a salary of 2.5 million so the adjustment to a very long penis though not easy and compromising would I believe be gladly accepted by most men.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Seems like an odd question to me. Wouldn't the "just right" size, even in a shallow way, be the size that satisfies both you and your partner?

And why the choice between those two less-than-perfect options? It's like asking if someone would rather die by hanging or firing squad. Most people would rather live.