UKC

After reading the other thread about willies, I have become slightly paranoid. Can anyone tell me the average willy size? Are willies measured in excited mode or relaxed mode?

Thanks

In reply to *ahem* John Smith:
Not sure but i think the average was meant to be about 4-5 inches which seems a little small

In reply to *ahem* John Smith: relaxed and i think it's 8 inches.

In reply to Bored:


lol; In their dreams !!!!!

In reply to Graham Taylor: I thought 'average' was about 6 inches (in tumescent state). I had a proud smile on my face for several days after reading that

In reply to Bored:

*crying* and now very paranoid

:O(

In reply to *ahem* John Smith:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/penissize.htm
http://www.pridepenis.co.uk/What_is_the_average_size_of_a_penis.htm

There you are. I am a little concerned if IT dept look at my web log now

In reply to Marc C:
Seems to be 6 and a bit in exited mode, and just of 3 in relaxed form

In reply to Graham Taylor:

LOL. you sure those websites don't refer to mice?

In reply to satori:
Hehe, probably. The ones surveyed thought i will lie about this one

In reply to Graham Taylor: do you measure in a straight line or along the bend?

In reply to rich:
????? No idea i havent measure for years.

In reply to rich:

....from the anus

In reply to Slugain Howff:
Saves having to hold the end of the tape

In reply to Graham Taylor: sorry - i meant 'one' not you

In reply to satori: Giant mice, surely?

After swimming in the local reservoir last January, I think my manhood could have merited a place in the Guinness Book of Records.

In reply to *ahem* John Smith: The average UK size is 6-8 inches i believe

In reply to Liz: So, including Scotland and Northern Ireland increases the average? Norrie and Dazman will be pleased....

In reply to Marc C:
Why Dazman, i thought that was why he had his owl fetish as it was considered to small for humans

In reply to Graham Taylor:

Talking of which, what sort of fetish might the model for Michelangelo's David have had, with that absurdly tiny thing of his??

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Maybe he did it to imply that his wasn't so titchy?
Hmm pschoanalysis of the greatist artisan of the renaissance by penis size.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

apparently Michaelangelo was gay, which perhaps explains why his women were rather manly... not sure about the titchy todger though.

In reply to Clare:


Was that not the result of a 17th century dusting accident?

In reply to Graham Taylor:

Is that above sea-level?

In reply to Clare:

Yes, he was gay, so I think it more likely that he wanted to show the genitalia at all costs (i.e not have to use a figleaf) and the only way he could do this that was acceptable to the church etc. was to make it v v small - an absurd compromise i.e. if you make it small enough, it's OK (as if no one will notice it ... whereas it's about the first thing anybody notices, because of its smallness). Only a theory.

(Or perhaps Italian men do have v small ones?!)

In reply to Clare:


Maybe a model with a small cock and large hands made him feel better about himself?

In reply to *ahem* John Smith:

Good to see that the tone is the same as ever!!


Donnala

In reply to DonnalaB:

We're having a serious artistic discussion, DonnalaB.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Are you sure?

Donnala

In reply to Marc C & Graham Taylor:

Listen you two, why are you dragging me into a discussion about small penises? I suspect that this is a case of 'deflection' on both of your own behalfs?

Marc's virtually admitted as much, with his confession regarding swimming in his local reservoir in January. It's entirely normal for a chaps tackle to shrink in such circumstances. However, it's entirely abnormal for it to retract completely. Even more so, if it stays that way! I'm reliably informed, by people who shall remain nameless, that Marc looks as though he's performing as a tribute act for John Bobbet... Thanks for the heads-up there Tiggs.

P.S. Dublin was in the Republic of Ireland last time that I looked. A little more attention to geography, and a little less to sociology, is called for Marc?

P.P.S. I emphatically don't shaft owls. What sort of a sicko do you take me for?... Our love runs much deeper than mere shagging.

In reply to *ahem* John Smith:

Perhaps an appropriate point to remind people of:

http://www.puppetryofthepenis.com/

In reply to Clauso:


Mere shagging? Oh so you call it making love then?

P.S. Do the feathers chafe?

In reply to Graham Taylor:

What sort of a stupid question is that? I can take a joke like most people, but this is really plumbing the depths. Please desist and cease with this line of banter.

P.S. Only if you neglect to pluck them.

In reply to *ahem* John Smith:

I dont think you can say that one is too small or too big can you really? I mean it depends on what the girl can take (sorry that sounds rather horrid!).

Donnala

In reply to Clauso:
OK, please accept my apologies.

P.S. I hope the RSPCA get you, fowl boy

In reply to DonnalaB:

No

In reply to Bored:


Surely relaxed is non comparative, some are growers and some are showers, if you ain't using it it's best tucked safely away for a rainy day.

In reply to TopOut:


Michelangelo gave David large hands (and head) in order to emphasise his youthfulness, and thus making his slaying feat more extraordinary. Childrens' head and hands and feet are larger compared with their torso than adults, so he intended that we would subconsciously attribute David with a childs qualities, ie youthfulness.
I don't know if this is why he made the penis small, but it would fit in with the theory.

In reply to Steven Martin:

Maybe he just had a slip with the chisel and made the cruellest cut of all, and then had to tidy it up?

Is DAvid circumcised, anyone?

In reply to psd:
When a sculptor can show veins and pores and hair in marble, he doesn't make accidental 'cuts'

No, he's not.

In reply to Steven Martin:

Hmm, so DAvid isn't, in point of fact, properly Jewish. Fascinating - if Michelangelo could carve in such detail, why leave the foreskin? Seems a total cock-up to me...

In reply to psd: Well I wouldn't go so far as to call it a balls up.

In reply to psd:

I agree. Foreskins do have their drawbacks.