This model is well know, it is called… the “tissue traction model.” No it has not been medically and conclusively proven in terms of penile growth, but it does explain a lot of what we see.
Not proven in terms of penile growth….but it explains a lot? So, you’re a PE Pragmatist?
Again, your losses may have had nothing to do with PE. Erectile dysfunction, natural aging, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, medications, psychological problems, relationship issues, diabetes, abnormal hormone levels.. the list goes on and on.
Keep adding epicycles about presumed medical conditions - which I do not have.
My, my, my. I thought you were trying to expand general PE knowledge. :leftie:
All kidding aside, I admire your rhetorical sleight. I wonder if others here noticed that you avoided the $64,000 question (regarding the delayed onset & inverted nature of my “decompensation.”). I could’ve avoided much typing had I limited my post to that one question - but then I would’ve denied you any chance to respond. :)
Again, my. Who knows what is going on with your dick. Medical case reports are interesting but are not generalizable to the general population. Try to gather others experiences if you want to make a sound theory.
This would be the ideal. Unfortunately, there isn’t exactly a dearth of vets here who’ve: (1) made significant gains and (2) took a very lengthy layoff from PE and (3) continue to post in the forum.
I am not sure that it IS difficult. Otherwise there would be many out of proportion penises post PE, with tiny glans. What I see is proportional growth, which coincides with genetic architectural maps (Again I am sorry this is not simple).
More rhetorical sleight. Do you consider a doubling of shaft volume to be “proportional” to zero head gains? (Apparently, you even understanding my arguments is “not simple”.)
I like simple as much as the next guy, but this model does not make sense. The penis is not an inert piece of material that you can explain with simple material science. I believe in Occam’s razor, but material science does not explain penile physiology. :noreally:
Now I have some questions for YOU ;) :
1) As material deforms it becomes easier to deform. Why do our dicks become harder to “deform” with more PE?
2) When material deforms it does not keep its original shape. Why do our dicks grow proportionally?
3) Why does vascularity of the penis often increase when starting PE?
4) Why do our dicks need rest… why not PE continually until your desired size is met?
Fair enough - but Occam’s razor is not limited to material science.
1) As I’ve stated a number of times, I’m theorizing a form of plastic deformation - not technically the exact deformation as observed in deformable solids.
2) While my response #1 also applies to your second question, your conclusion “Why do our dicks grow proportionally?” is not uniformly true:  again, my head didn’t grow at all,  my girth gains were far greater, proportionally, than my length gains,  my base girth gains exceeded my mid-shaft girth gains (so, clearly pertaining to me, your question is really just another unproven assumption).
3) Vascularity in general or relating to the CC/CS? In either case, the blood passage ways could also be deformed by high-pressure impaction (via jelqs, squeezes, clamps, etc.) - this is not in any way “refute” my model.
4) Is this a sarcastic question (as in PE’ing 168 hours per week - which you know is humanly impossible) or are you referring to pe’ing 7 days per week?…such as my former classmate “the Big Gainer” did? Moreover, he eventually wound up doing twice-daily workouts (14 per week) - and gained far more than I did.