I'll dare go first.
Immediately, I think it is really difficult to provide an answer that will be universally accepted by our members, readers, or others around here. Afterall, this forum was first created for the "big" and has been kept going by those of us who think "big". Seems to me OUR "view", OUR "take", OUR "interpretation" of small might very well wind up slanted if not badly skewed ... the WRONG way! It's been estimated the average erect size of the LPSG membership (those who are posting their stats) is something in the neighborhood of 8". Wow!.....So, any measurement under that is going to be considered "small" then, --at least around here.
Really?
Well----what about that all too familiar standard "statistical" reference constantly hitting us up side the head.....5.5" (erect length) x 4/75" (girth)....what does THAT matter, then? --Do we discard it? Laugh it off? -- Poo-poo it?
My point is that no matter what we larger fellas list as our view on small, this forum is no place to feel good about one's self if a male reader happens to measure under 8 inches. That's my worst fear...the negative impact the LPSG winds up having for so many men.
A man can be 5.5", 6", even 7" around here, but he's going to risk winding up feeling small. Try as we might, we'll NEVER convince him otherwise.
For the record, I will consider any man under 5.5" as "below typical average". But he still will be a man in my way of thinking and will be quite capable of "doing the job" as a male human being. His "size" won't prevent him from using it and he WILL most likely get some kind of results when he does use it.
Also for the record, I wouldn't poke fun of him about his size, either.
btw----Even at a measurement of 4" (or less), I would deliberately avoid using the term "small". --Why say the obvious and make matters worse for a fella?
So, --Hey! Why, I've just determined...
I would only say "below average" then for ANYONE under 5.5".
(I would not even use that term "small".
)