Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Reality of measuring BPEL.

Ideally, the measurement should be done with a cylinder, something similar to a toilet roll tube. You would place it over your cock and then line a scale to the base of the tube, the cock would be measured straight-out or the tube itself would have scale markings along its length, this avoids people scaling up to their navel and giving you the “navel pressed measurement.” What do my measurements have to do with anything? I am 7.5 x 5.8, a good day gets me to 8.

Originally Posted by tweek13
Duuuuuude!

I dunno if you were just being flippant in your idea but…

I actually think this is a fucking great idea.

Thanks, glad you like it.

I think it would be the best way of measuring, yeah - same as measuring volume by immersing the dick in liquid - it’s just that knowing that data wouldn’t affect either my self image or my PE: I’m concerned with growing-respective-to-myself, not everyone else.

I’m not so mature that I wouldn’t appreciate having my name attached to the concept if it catches on, though - but it’s not purely “my” idea: “insertable length” is the term used in dildo product descriptions: if the base of the dildo is a handle or battery holder, it’s excluded from the “IL”: for instance, an 8 inch dildo with a 2 inch handle has only 6 inches insertable.

But sure, I do think it would be the most accurate length measurement, and end this debate.

Originally Posted by Lonelysurfer
Ideally, the measurement should be done with a cylinder, something similar to a toilet roll tube. You would place it over your cock and then line a scale to the base of the tube, the cock would be measured straight-out or the tube itself would have scale markings along its length, this avoids people scaling up to their navel and giving you the “navel pressed measurement.”

Mmm, not so sure: the purpose of IL/HPEL measuring is to avoid the “ruler jamming into otherwise impenetrable fat”, right? The fatpad-haters’ theory being, a ruler can thrust deeper into your crotch-fat-tissue than a woman’s pelvis. So the point of the system I’m proposing is to get a provably insertable measurement bigger than NBPEL that takes compressed fatpad width into account - you could even call it “compressed fatpad erect length”.

The point of using a flat board over the pelvis is to press against *all* your genital-encircling fat at the same time: lots of surface contact, to show how compressable your fatpad would be in a real-world, pelvis-to-pelvis situation - as opposed to the top part of a narrow ring that would just plunge in and displace the fat to either side almost as much as a ruler-end (and hang untouched under the dick). The idea is to mimic the flesh around a woman’s pussy: could it push your fatpad down like a soft blanket to engulf more shaft-length than is visible - or just be blocked at the surface, as if by hard clay?

I think all that’s needed is a thin, flat board with a your-dick-base-sized-hole (you could measure the board’s width and add it to the IL/HPEL length - you don’t need a thin board) and a ruler.

So: you press down, the board compresses the fatpad (or doesn’t), and the ruler measures dick length minus compressed fatpad (and minus board width): IL/HPEL.

(Now that I think about it, HPEL be a better name than IL - because dildos don’t have fatpads, and this measurement would be all about proving how much fatpads matter/don’t matter).


Last edited by Foryourprivacy : 09-29-2009 at .

Edit: “I think all that’s needed is a thin, flat board … you don’t need an ABSURDLY thin board)”

Guys, just measure inside a pumping cylinder, and you can estimate your ‘insertable’ penis. I’d say (NBPEL+BPEL)/2 is a good estimation, anyway.

Marinera I think using a pumping cylinder misses the point of the whole exercise, as even a pumping cylinder will dig in far more than than a flat surface.

Originally Posted by tweek13
Marinera I think using a pumping cylinder misses the point of the whole exercise, as even a pumping cylinder will dig in far more than than a flat surface.

I disagree about the pumping cylinder. The vag is not a hard circle, and having a couple of cylinders myself, I can tell you without a doubt that I get far more of my unit in my wife, than I do in the cylinder.

If the cylinder had no outside ring, I think it would be a “closer to reality”, but mine have at least a 1/2” ring as an “edge”.

I will say, again, that it really depends on the position. There are many positions that I can FEEL my unit penetrate to the hilt.

The debate will rage on. (for what ever it’s worth) :)


Paraphrased: It is not the critic who counts: The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

AcidJazz: If the cylinder had no outside ring, I think it would be a “closer to reality”, but mine have at least a 1/2” ring as an “edge”.

But what about your wife’s pelvis - the flat plane of flesh surrounding her vagina on all sides?

Sorry if I’m assuming.

Though I guess the woman’s “fatpad” would compress a bit, too.

Originally Posted by tweek13
Marinera I think using a pumping cylinder misses the point of the whole exercise, as even a pumping cylinder will dig in far more than than a flat surface.

Agreed: though I think Marinera’s right that it’s not a big deal (this is about science now, though, not dick size), his plan wouldn’t achieve the result we’re after - it has the same flaws as lonelysurfer’s.

Even a fleshlight with a built in ruler would work better - the more surface area contacting the pelvis, the better - or one of the amazing devices a google image search for “fake vagina” reveals.

Or maybe you could just push a ruler onto your pelvic bone, push a flat hard plane with a hole in it down next to it, and subtract whatever distance towards the base the plane *doesn’t* travel from your BPEL?

***

Intellectually stimulating, but completely useless. Oh well.


Last edited by Foryourprivacy : 09-29-2009 at .

Of course BPEL is the only correct measurement. If you take a really fat person and measure his unit to 6”, then make him lose 70 pounds of weight, has his penis grown 1” if it shows 7”? No of course not, it has been 7” the whole time.


Start: 6.3 BPEL x 4.5 MSEG & 4.5 BSEG

Now: 7.7 x 4.7 x 5.5 BSEG

Goal: 8 x 6

Well I think IL/HPEL would just give a good idea of useable penis, whereas the cylinder would not, and both nbpel and bpel also do not, regardless of people’s claims that they can feel ‘every bit of it’. I think it would be simply impossible to actually prove this to be the case.

For me, the reason this really appeals to me, is I think it would provide a method of measurement that would be easier to do than any other, and would always give fairly consistant results (though maybe not if you lose lots of weight - it’d be better than this situation with nbpel). Simply stick yourself through a hole in a hard peice of card and jam it against your fatpad with a ruler, measure your size, voila!

I’d say BPEL is probably best for tracking gains, while IEL/HPEL would be best for defusing the debate implied by this thread title.

Originally Posted by PErsonal_man
Isn’t that just to make us feel better? Since it’s hidden, it’s not ‘there’. Suck it in, measure non bone pressed and get to work, instead of sitting and gleeming at your one inch that is in the pudding.. Er fat pad! ;)

.Seriously.

That is what I did a couple of months ago. I know it sucks dudes, but a man has to admit what a man has to admit.

WWAAAAAHHHH!!

I totally disagree.. Dude.. When you have sex with somebody.. And fully fully penetrate.. That’s when BPEL isn’t just for making us feel better.

It’s totally valid that during sex you can penetrate as deep as your BPEL.. Unless you’re having very tame and boring sex, and honestly.. I hope nobody is.

Originally Posted by Foryourprivacy
I’d say BPEL is probably best for tracking gains, while IEL/HPEL would be best for defusing the debate implied by this thread title.

I agree, this all sounds like a bunch of extra crap to worry about for very little difference if you ask me. When it comes down to it, we’re here for a bigger dick, and to know if we’re getting that, we need to measure, and the best way to track gains is BPEL, as it always has been.


8-1-2009: BPEL 7.250 x 5.5

11-1-2009: BPEL 7.750 x 5.875

Goal: 9 x 6.5

Originally Posted by Maverick383
I agree, this all sounds like a bunch of extra crap to worry about for very little difference if you ask me. When it comes down to it, we’re here for a bigger dick, and to know if we’re getting that, we need to measure, and the best way to track gains is BPEL, as it always has been.

Its easy to make self-assured, dismissive and irrelivent statements like this.

We’re not qusetioning PE intensions.Ssimply saying that BPEL is the best, confidently, doesn’t add anything to the table.

BPEL has variation, IN INDIVIDUALS, based on how far from the penis or which side its taken on. That is why I like the novel idea suggested in this thread, which I feel IS a more accurate measure of USEABLE penis.

Maverick383: this all sounds like a bunch of extra crap to worry about for very little difference if you ask me.

Well:

Collegeguy: “It’s totally valid that during sex you can penetrate as deep as your BPEL

PErsonal Man: “Since it’s hidden, it’s not ‘there’.”

If they were saying “this colour is black” vs “this colour is white”, wouldn’t you be curious as to what the truth is?

Is one side completely right, and one completely wrong? Do they have different fatpads? What’s going on here, that they can have such opposite opinions about something theoretically so measurable?

Sure, BPEL tracks your own gains respective to yourself, but where’s your abstract spirit of inquiry?

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 PM.