Myths and false ideas in PE

Yes, trial and error is our way to go until the accumulated PE knowledge will be able to replace it. Each experimental science began with trial and error. Then the governing laws were found and things got more predictable.

We have much to do in order to apply a more scientific approach versus the empirical trials, but first we should want to do it! A next step could be to speak the same language - and I’m not talking about English, but about the PE language. Different terms should be more precisely defined. Let’s take the example from your previous post:

“Let’s take PE as an example, how many people find 3 days on 2 off an effective routine and how many find 5 on 2 off effective?”

We read each day about such comparisons. It makes me smile as it really compares 3+2 apples to 5+2 peaches. Each and everybody has a different routine, even if it seems the same written down: 10 minutes stretching and 200 jelqs… Do you think there are two random people doing the stretches exactly the same way? If they are following the “official” instructions, no way for that to happen. Exercises are not described accurately enough to be reproducible. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to be impolite to the wonderful guys who wrote them down on the site and kindly shared them with us. Just aren’t scientifically accurately described. When a stretch intensity is given in terms of how it feels (ex: stretch until it feels still comfortable and a bit more - kind like this), some will stretch with a force of 2 pounds and others with 10 pounds because comfortable may be over a long range… The former may do some light massaging with no growing effect, while the latter may be overtraining his shaft and gets bad EQ - just because they have different perceptions of what feels comfortable.

Back to the example, it looks now less relevant the frequency of work/rest days when the basic routine is not exactly known how to be done.
I hope the example above shed some light on what I mean by defining more accurately the PE terms and routines.

What you are saying is that is impossible to reach any scientific knowledge in PE, cervix.

The example you did is out of road, IMHO. Even if there aren’t two guys doing exercises exactly the same way, a comparison between two scheduled training with different frequence is still possible: in both groups there will be people doing exercises in analogous way, so there will be a stastical compensation.

Maybe it wasn’t the best example, but I think the idea is clear enough. People may do the exercises in a so much different way (think about how jelqing is interpreted), that they are similar only by name. Actually, the effects they get doing exercises differently may shadow the effects of different frequency.

I really think scientific knowledge will be reached in PE. Don’t you think defining terms and routines more accurately would be a step in that direction?

I am inclined to agree with you. Although I challenged your statements about blood flow, the more basic point is that I disagree that people think blood flow is higher during erection. The mechanism of erection is fairly well understood and expressed on this site. I don’t think that’s a myth that needs to be busted.

What I do hear around this site, however, is that jelqing increases blood flow. I think that’s right, due to the mechanical forces imposed on the penis. The blood that flows may not be fresh, oxygenated blood, at least not at high erection levels, but jelqing certainly moves around whatever blood is trapped in the penis.

It also stresses the penis, which I think is likely to increase blood flow once the penis becomes flaccid again.

I doubt a better definition of terms and routines could help that much, cervixhunter. Streches are stretches, jelqs are jelqs: one has a good understanding of an exercise because can feel how it is working; when this doesn’t happens, the ‘subject’ comes saying : “Hey, I have the doubt I’ m not doing it properly.”. It isn’t a definition problem, IMHO, but a learning problem - every (any?) PE technique has a learning curve, longer for some.

Or maybe I haven’t got what you are referring to. :)

Let’s just stick to the stretching routine. From what I understand reading a certain newbie’s routine description, I see he does only ligament stretches in 8 directions. I do only “tunica stretches” and only in the direction of erection (horizontally, slightly upwards). Considering the effects, you have to admit that we are doing different exercises, it’s just both are called stretches - a regrettable coincidence… Does it make sense to compare them regarding frequency?

The other aspect is the force involved in stretching (admitting the same type of stretches are being compared). You say it’s a matter of doing it correctly, without defining what should that mean in terms of quantified values. When the subject realizes it’s making no progress, it means that the force was not the correct one and should change it. I think you see some sort of auto-regulation that eventually leads to the correct value. That would be the learning curve.
I think that is not a very efficient way in terms of time spent, not to mention the abandon rate due to frustration, or simply by not being able to spot what should be changed when it does not work. The subject may think the grip was not the correct one, the frequency is not right, or simply that kind of stretch is not suited for him. If it had been told a bit better how much force should be used, a lot of frustration would have been avoided.

8 directions are defined well enough I think. I don’t know what are ‘tunica’ stretching and ‘lig’ stretching : manual stretching is meant as simple, regular stretching, other kinds of stretching have different names.

Defining the force in an abstract way is even less useful than what you call ‘auto-regulation’ IMHO: 3 kg of force could be too much for a given penis, too little for another; going by feeling is not perfect, but good enough.

Again, it’s not matter of definitions, but a matter of experience and understanding: this is a very good explication of how a manual stretching should be done:

firegoat - Length Gains

it’s more useful than any possible definition, I think. About correct form: we have pics, guides, even videos.

Anyway, if you do think definition, values etc. could help, feel free to post them.

Bloodflow is better after an erection. For me I have much better circulation after the erection, and thats maybe because the penis has been filled with oxygen?

No one can tell me I’m wrong, because then its better if you come and take a look at my penis after an erection ;)

marinera, I agree with your points. By the way, good routine description in the firegoat thread!

I’m not suggesting that the hard work done by this community is wrong and I will show how it should be done. All I’m saying is that is not scientific - no one expects it to be scientific. This makes it more difficult to analyze it and come up with a consistent theory. What makes an experiment scientific is reproducibility. The way we explain our own experience with PE is not accurate enough to be reproducible. The firegoat stretch explanation is not an exception from this. It doesn’t guarantee for two PE-ers to make exactly the same exercise following the description, because it has subjective indications. I don’t know how to avoid that, but it would be much better if we could eliminate as much as possible the subjective elements from the instructions.

No one tells you are wrong - at least I’m not telling that. If you are saying that you have a better blood flow after the erection than before, I simply don’t know. I would like to know how do you know that? I guess you don’t have Doppler scanning done to show that and you base your claim on subjective feelings. I’m sure you feel better, I feel the same. But that is not a proof. The feelings we have may be the effect of some neurotransmitters released by the brain.

Cervixhunter,

I can see that increased size could be a trade off with erection angle. Some may indeed like it better that way. However are you sure this doesn’t decrease sexual power or effectiveness with a lower angle? I am sure there is a reason for the natural angle of a healthy erection.

Do we have to trade off the angle for an increase in size? Ideally it would be nice to only GAIN and loose nothing in terms of angle, hardness, sensation, and visual erotic properties of a healthy erection. Maybe that is too much to ask for, but that is what I would prefer in PE. I think that is what most people visualize is the same healthy penis, but larger and better in everyway.

There are many others more qualified to answer that question, those who followed that path. From what I have read so far, no one complained of such problems. Hopefully there were no reasons to complain. However, given the delicate nature of issue, I sincerely don’t expect to be easy for anyone to admit a virtual disappointment.

Fortunately one can increase its penis size without changing the angle of erection. Stretching the suspensory ligaments is not a compulsory action, it’s optional for those who want to collect the bonus of fast gaining some length and don’t care about lowering the angle.
There is the alternative of tunica stretching which does not put much stress on the ligaments to alter the erection angle. Without this alternative I wouldn’t have considered PE at all.

No, we mean the same thing. The reason the incision isn’t circular is because in order to release some of this “hidden” portion of the penis, you only need to lengthen the ligaments on the dorsal side, where the suspensory ligaments attach. Imagine that the suspensory ligament is like a grappling hook sunk into the sides of the penis, and lifting it up, causing the penis to go up and then out rather than just straight out.

The other ligaments that attach, encircle the penis root like a clamp or a ring and attach as well to the pubic bone. You pretty much need those to remain intact or there will be little anchoring your penis to your skeleton.

The reason there are “lig gains” is that you can with enough force over time, cause the suspensory ligaments to deform, to lengthen. Surgery is just much quicker. The science is sound. It’s the same thing, with different methods.

Good information Fantom, good to know.

Cervixhunter,

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest input! I am glad you are sharing your knowledge, while at the same time being truthful about your limits of what you know.