Thunder's Place

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

Compromise

12

Okay, so let’s start another debate. :) Now that we’ve had post after post on the frequency of 10 + lengths, let’s talk about the frequency of 7 + girths.

IMO, (and granted, this is based entirely on the virtual absence of 7 + girth in porn, as that is the only time I really see other men’s dicks erect, so take it as you will), a 7 + girth is probably even rarer than a 10 + length. For example, watch the way that girls will get their hands around Lexington Steele or Mandingo. I can believe that these guys are, legitimately, in the 11 inch length range - but their girth has got to be less than 7”. I know that I have 7” wrists, and no 5’3” petite women is getting her hands around my wrists easily.

Off topic - Wad, you ever read all that crap I wrote about the Shining?

Originally Posted by SmilingBob

I have a theory that length and girth, thus penis shape, is somewhat determined genetically, and the body tries to maintain this shape. I am not saying you can not improve on one aspect over the other, but perhaps the body tries to keep a ratio between girth and length regardless of the type of exercise/stretch you do.

Interesting theory Bob,

What makes you think it is true?

Originally Posted by Metal Ed
IMO, (and granted, this is based entirely on the virtual absence of 7 + girth in porn, as that is the only time I really see other men’s dicks erect, so take it as you will), a 7 + girth is probably even rarer than a 10 + length. For example, watch the way that girls will get their hands around Lexington Steele or Mandingo. I can believe that these guys are, legitimately, in the 11 inch length range - but their girth has got to be less than 7”.

Off topic - Wad, you ever read all that crap I wrote about the Shining?


I agree that 7+ girth is more rare than 10+ length - and I would say that not only the absence of those bricks in porn might suggest the scarcity, but also the Kinsey chart (again, taken at the thickest point) seems to inspire more skepticism about length than girth.

Back in my youth (15+ years pre-PE), I remember receiving unsolicited girth compliments from several women - and that was at 5.25 midshaft and about 5.7 base. I had no idea that was a “thick” tool. I was focused on my unsatisfactory (to me) length. According to Kinsey, even back then, I was roughly in the upper 10 percentile (taken at my thickest point). Who’d a thunk it?

Another point: consider that 1/2” girth is a helluva lot more than 1/2” length:

1/2” Length difference
7 x 5.25 = 15.35 ci
7.5 x 5.25 = 16.45 ci
The guy 1/2” longer has about 1.1 ci more cock - in this example.

1/2” Girth difference
7 x 5.25 = 15.35 ci
7 x 5.75 = 18.42 ci
The guy 1/2” thicker has about 3.07 ci more cock - in this example.

In other words, most women would hardly notice, if at all, the difference between the first group of men; but they’d damn sure distinguish between the second group.

Ed, you posted that long ago. I know I read a lot of it, if not all of it. Why don’t you post it again? I was always a Shining freak - saw it during it’s original run in theatres.

I think SmilingBob may have a point there, although I cannot propose a possible explanation for it. The body does seem to like balance and symmetry within a reasonable tolerance.

….That said, and having thought about it a few minutes more, I seem to remember reading something in a bodybuilding article where it suggested that to keep growing your upper body you must work your lower body too since it’s a unified structure (article something like people working biceps for 20 sets and never hitting the squat rack). The same might be true of the penis. A 10”L x 1”G cock would be very unstable and injury prone from a structural (and Darwinian) point of view. If your body percieves that it is in balance at your current ratio, then building a bigger foundation might provide the consent to grow longer too(?) Pure speculation on my part though.

You guys have also changed my point of view of what my ultimate goals would be. I guess that among the many motivations for PE, standing out from the average Joe is probably one of them. In getting a couple of inches bigger than the mainstream we are in danger of doing ourselves a disservice. We listen to what women ‘say’, but perhaps we don’t always catch what they ‘mean’ or even what they ‘need’. When women say ‘this guy must have been 10” ‘, and we say “nah that’s only 7.7612”, perhaps what they mean is that they felt it was thicker than normal, so in some weird glitch of logic, that came out as ‘bigger’ (lost in translation to ‘longer’) rather than ‘thicker’. Since the vagina can adapt to accommodate girth much better than length, maybe we should be adjusting our ratios a little. I’d say a BP9”x7” would me the most any practical ‘street car’ model could reasonably aspire to without going too specialist. Once you’re long enough to ‘hit the back’ then there’s really no more milage in that axis. Girth is more useful, and if in pursuing that you get the length you wished for too then that’s just the icing on the cake.

Shiver

And another thing…

Is there any good evidence to suggest that doing girth work will hinder length gains? I had previously accepted it as true, but thinking about it just now I’m not so sure. My understanding is that the tunica is made of concentric rings/fibres, and longitudenal ones. With the above ideas of ratio/balance aside, is there any reason to believe that other than fluffing up cell sizes (by that I mean that things like the Jez extender claim to increase girth also while only stretching), why would one prevent the other. It seems more likely that one would facilitate the other (especially if Jez are correct).

I’d say definately switch to girth, but keep some stretching in there too.

Shiver

Top
12

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 PM.