I’m trying to find some (relatively) firm footing to stand on from whence to venture off into this LOT Theory question. Gonna need a little help with that.
If I understand correctly, you find fault with LOT Theory because LOT is relatively unaffected by change in susp. lig length, while inner penis length seems to effect LOT relatively much. From a mechanistic standpoint, I’ve thought that susp. lig lengthening (peeling back load sensing lig arrays really) caused conversion of inner penis to outer penis…a cause and effect relationship. If this is right, then are we simply finding that the magnitude to which one physiological response, LOT, changes relative to two different but related physiological responses to the stimuli that we present is non-uniform? On it’s own, nothing unusual about that. Is your objection to LOT theory rooted in the idea that for a given change in LOT, more change in lig length should occur than in IP? Geometrically, I can see why that would be.
As far as I know, Bigger never made predictive statements about the magnitude that LOT should change relative to lig length or IP length or anything. My understanding is that LOT Theory describes a qualitative relationship (a theorized trend, not a defined function) between LOT and the relative magnitude of potential susp. lig sourced length gains available from peeling back of distal susp. lig arrays. I guess I’m not seeing where your objections to LOT Theory run a-foul with my understanding of it. Maybe I just don’t understand it in the first place. Bigger once told me that I do, but that may have been during a fleeting moment of lucidity.
I feel confused but at a much higher level.
Your turn :)