Measuring and defining large

Ok I'm new 'round these parts and had a couple of questions.

First about measuring. I'll use myself as an example. Take a look at my wang in the attached pics with scale reference. If I straiten it out when I'm hard (which is difficult because I curve up) and measure from the top I get just over 7". Bonepressed it measures an extra inch and becomes that magic 8" number (5.5" around if anyone was wondering). But which one is the "real" measurement?

Second question is about what large is. We can all use google and find studies the say that the average guy is 5.x" long and 4.x" thick. So we know what average is. But what number of inches becomes "large" and then what number becomes "huge"???

http://www.lpsg.org/attachments/1628...e-img00140.jpg

http://www.lpsg.org/attachments/1628...e-img00170.jpg

http://www.lpsg.org/attachments/1628...e-img00141.jpg

Well I guess 'size' is relative anyway. To a guy with 5.5" a 7-incher will look huge. Whereas a 7.5" will look small to a super-endowed guy of over 9". My rating (trying to be objective) would be:

Over 9" (say up to 10" - as anything over that must be so rare as to be statistically negligible) : HUGE
Over 8" : LARGE
Over 7" : BIG
Over 6" : AVERAGE
Under 6" : SMALL

Circumference is another matter, and can vary a lot all up the scale. A thick 6-incher can be 'big', and a thick 9-incher absolutely massive. Anyone is lucky who has thickness as a bonus.

No.

It depends on the person, nice chart though.

jda - what do you mean "it depends on the person"? Do you mean that an average sized dick will look bigger on a small guy - if not I don't get what you mean.

That puts at least 50% of men in the SMALL category.

BIG probably should start at 6,5", AVERAGE should be between 5" and 6,5" and SMALL under 5".
In order to be LARGE you have to be at least 7,5", and the epithet HUGE should be reserved for guys who have a 6,5" girth or more, as well as 9" or more in length.

Your numbers are inflated. The average from most surveys of a large population is anywhere from 5-5.5". That's the average. Which means that about 50% of the population is below that number. Just because it's below average does not mean that it's "small". I suspect the distribution follows close to a bell-curve, which means that ~67% of men have something around 4.5-6" (assuming a standard deviation of 0.75").

The categories should probably be:
Small: under 4.5"
Average: 4.5-6"
Large: 6-8"
Huge: 8+"

P.S. Isn't 'big' and 'large' the same? Maybe you should add something like Enormous for the 10+".

I'd differentiate between "Big" and "Large" if only because it seems there is a lot of visual ground between 6.5-7" and 8-8.5" and the words seem to make enough connotative sense.

less than 4 small
4-6 average
6-7 above average
7-8 large or big
8-9 XL
9+ huge

This seems to me realistic, apart from the range given for "average." For one thing, you have given a range of two inches for "average," whereas the other terms have a range of one inch; for another, I think a length below 5" falls below what should be considered the "average" range. So I would say 4-5, small; 5-6, average -- or rather "medium".

Can we make them like clothing sizes? Here's how that might go:

3-4, XS
4-5, S
5-6, M
6-7, L
7-8, XL
8-9, XXL
9 and up, XXXL?

But then, calling a dick that is just over 7" in length "extra-large" seems an overstatement. Maybe we can't do it with neat divisions of one inch?

However you try to divide up the ranges, though, the real problem is that you can't call a penis big or small or whatever on account of its length alone; girth has to be taken into account. It is ridiculous to suppose that the same adjective of size could be applied to two dicks of the same length if one of them had half again as much girth as the other. E.g., Billy Glide's dick is probably not much more than 7" long, but I would call it huge because it is so thick; I would not apply that term to a dick of the same length but only, say, 5½" in girth.

The words "big" and "large" differ in tone and in their ranges of application, but to suppose that one of them connotes greater size than the other is daft.

who was the female poster that had the chart in her sig

I simply accepted the two as different and applicable enough for a situation that needs a term between big/large and huge. So the use of one or the other does not connote any size difference. Fine. Replace the words. The words in question were not really the point. The point was the need for a medium between big and huge, as which large has some capacity to function, even if it's not completely proper or correct. So put something more connatatively sound in there; you won't here me object

Daft is probably one of the most daft words in the English language short of ointment. I don't hear people use ointment as a rhetorical jab, and for good reason. Calling that supposition daft, or anything else really, just makes you sound daft. DAFT !!

If one has read most penis surveys throughout the years it is reasonable to assume the average male erect penis lies between 5.5" and 6.75" and 85% of men are some place in this range. So, I look at at it that if your are in this range you are "average". The other 15% of the population I would catergorized as such:

4.5"-5.49" is below average. Below 4.5" and you are small. Between 6.76" and 7.5" you are above average. Between 7.51"-8.5"' and you are big. Anything Above 8.5" is very big or well endowed and anything 9" plus is huge.

I like those who don't have you needing to be what I'd call huge to be "big." It makes me feel a little better.

Two questions:
Are these bone pressed measurements or not?

Granted, it varies less, but what similar charts would you guys come up with for girth?

Were you high when you wrote this? It makes no sense to me at all.

I did put this in a different thread - I had all the info in a nice table but this thing didn't like my table and it went a bit pete tong hope you can read it anyways
Size Male / Female