Ligaments in general are not elasticy like your chewing gum.
I completely agree. Bubble gum will stretch much further and faster than our penile ligaments. The example is there for people to understand what happens over a period of time —- much much slower and less dramatic (i.e. the ligaments probably can’t stretch 6-12 inches as the gum can).
I think WestLA said it best: the ligaments are extremely strong rubber cords. Stretching these cords takes time. Following LOT theory, this is the reason gains don’t happen immediately.
Also, you have not acknowledged the difference between length and tightness.
Do you understand what is meant by inner penis (IP) and outer penis (OP) in the model?
The model represents the ligs as a single line. This is possibly problemmatic, but it’s not altogether rediculous. The attachment point of the lig line along the shaft divides the shaft into an IP and an OP. THat’s all there is to it. It does not matter what is inside or outside the body. When talking about the simulator, it is important to maintain the formality of what’s IP and what’s OP.
I believe I do, and I think this is where some confusion lies.
OP stands for outer penis, but in the LOT simulator its not necessarily outer penis.
IP stands for inner penis, but in the LOT simulator its not necessarily inner penis.
It would help me a great deal if you could use the terms as they are defined here, rather than using Bib’s definitions or somebody else’s.
They are my definitions. I don’t know if they have been used before, but I haven’t seen them. They help divide the inner penis into the important parts.
IP2 is irrelevant to LOT theory.
IP1 is the inner penis that becomes OP.
This is exactly the point that I was trying to make. The ligs don’t generally reach back. This came up, however, because you defending LOT Theory Assertion #2 by showing that lig length was relevant to the amount of IP. You gave as a reason the fact that the simulator throws an error when the ligs and/or IP are too short. I countered that the model supports your point in this certain case, but that it was a strange case in which the ligs were reaching back.
Now, you say you find this case to be unlikely and strange, and I agree. But this all brings us pretty far from the initial point, which was, is Assertion #2 correct. As I think I’ve explained above, I think that lig tightness and length are either somewhat or totally irrelevant to the amount of IP, and that attachment point on the PS is relevant to IP (although not much is to be gained by lowering attachment point, so why worry about it).
Is this clearer? This is getting complicated, so please think this through before you respond.
You are right, we are getting off base. My intentions are much like yours. I want the truth. I am not completely on one side in the LOT theory is debate. I see reasons for the LOT theory to be right, and I also see some flaws. The reason I posted in this thread was simple. I think your debate to Assertion # 2 is wrong.
Now, like I said in the beginning, I could be doing this wrong. But assuming that everything is correct, I have one simple example.
First, I set everything to default.
I took a picture of this and attached it. This picture is called “shortligs.” In this picture there is a black line going down the middle. This black line represents the skin. In other words, everything to the left of the line is part of the inner body; everything right of the line is part of the outer body. Thus, the right of the black line is outer penis.
There is also a purple line. This line is for understanding purposes only. Note the length of the purple line in picture 1.
I then changed the ligament length from 15 to 50. I took a picture of this. This picture is called “longligs.” This picture has both a black line and a purple line.
Comparing picture 1 and 2, you can see that purple line gets bigger (which most of it use to be inner penis). Most importantly, you can see that the longer the ligs (picture 2), the shorter the inner penis.
This is where I’m confused. This is why I don’t understand your debate to Assertion #2.
The one problem I see with Bib’s drawing is that he’s shown the pubic symphysis as a vertically oriented structure. This is wrong. The PS is angled at about 45-degrees. Bib’s picture suggests that one could achieve decent gains by stretching the ligs alone. But this is wrong because the PS angles back. As I wrote above, stretching the ligs back a full inch along the face of the PS only buys you 0.3” of insertable length. Bib’s picture suggests that it buys you 1”.
I strive to keep an open mind on the subject, but I really think at this point that LOT Theory is a red herring.
If LOT theory is red herring, then what is the main issue?
I welcome contrary points of view, but that’s where I’m coming from at this moment.
Me and you are one in the same, my friend.