Does it matter where on the penis the girth is?

Already figured it that way (see ‘Measuring the whole picture - volume’ thread). Seems most would rather not bother with the wet & messy approach. The best part about a mathematical formula is that it would use the two numbers (bpel & meg) that we all know. Two numbers just plug em into the worksheet.

They also said Bill Gates was way overthinking this pc thing.

A person with even girth from base to tip has the advantage, that regardless of how deep he inserts, she’s feeling the entire girth the entire time. She doesn’t have to wait till he’s balls deep to feel the largest area of girth at the base.

If the girth is greater near the base, and the first 1/3 of her vagina is the most sensitive, then the area of largest girth (base to mid point) is pushing on her most sensitive area of her vaginal walls. My point is that extra girth between mseg & bseg should matter and should count as part of overall measurement. Only using MSEG is missing the bigger picture, literally (Ha Ha), She will also feel her opening being spread out wider as you push in deeper. That could be considered a good thing for some women.

My point is that if MSEG is smaller than base girth, the extra girth between the mid point and base should account for something, and their penis should be considered bigger than if mid & base girth were the same. Of course if volume was being calculated correctly (cone vs tube), it would have greater volume, thus larger.

Thats inaccurate though unless you calculate on width and CC thickness and CS width. Displacement seems the only true way to measure the volume of a non polygonal object

This is what I am trying to say. The girth must be where she is going to feel it. If a vag is only 4” deep any larger girth past 4” will not even be able to get inside. Therefore, it is not of any advantage unless her vag is deep enough.

He gets it!

This is only the case if she can take that much length, otherwise MSEG and base girth are nul and void.

You’re right Czepa, the water displacement method would seem to be the most accurate. I’ve yet to see someone, anyone, measure their volume this way though. It’s a lot trickier to accomplish than it sounds. If anyone has done this with success please correct me.

What I’ve been arguing for is using the silo volume method is to get a closer to accurate number for the database. The formula being used now is calculating a cylinder with flat ends, circumference x length. There’s no way that’s even close in my opinion.

Why wouldn’t I want to get an EXACT measurement of volume? Because no ding-dong is a perfect shape and volume every time. That’s why I’m ok with a close measurement based on bpel, meg, & percentage of silo or test tube shape.