Thunder's Place

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

Testing LOT Theory

Modesto,

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Also, you have not acknowledged the difference between length and tightness.

Very true.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

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.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

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.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

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 agree.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

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?

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

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.


TGC Theory | Who Says The Penis Isn't a Muscle?

"To leave the world a better place, to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived is to succeed." - Emerson

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Lig stretching promotes only a small amount of length gains at normal fucking angles. To get that small gain, you have to really loosen the ligaments, which has consequences for erectile stability.

You know, there is one thing we can do to see if you’re right.


TGC Theory | Who Says The Penis Isn't a Muscle?

"To leave the world a better place, to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived is to succeed." - Emerson

Originally Posted by remek

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.

Ligaments are composed largely of collagen fibers, which have a higher tensile strength than steel. They’re not like any rubber band I’ve seen.

Originally Posted by remek

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.

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.

OK. But you’re asking questions that relate to the simulator. Why not communicate in the language of the simulator? Otherwise, I get confused.

Originally Posted by remek

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.

I believe that assertion 2 is partly true and partly false. The problem is that assertion 2 is actually several different assertions rolled into one statement. I’ve talked a lot about my thoughts on this above, but we could continue if you’d like.

Originally Posted by remek

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.

I don’t see the pictures. I thought I saw them in another post. I’ll check and come back to comment later.

Originally Posted by remek

If LOT theory is red herring, then what is the main issue?

You asked questions; I’m trying to answer them. Whether LOT Theory is a red herring or not, it’s still something most guys who do PE know about and think about. I think it’s worth discussing even if the discussion leads to the conclusion that it is a red herring.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-18-2006 at .

@Remek.

I see your drawings. You had posted,

Originally Posted by remek
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.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I do think it comes down to a question of semantics. By my definition, IP runs from the IR to the junction of the shaft with the ligs. By your definition, it’s anything that’s outside the body. By your definition, stretching the ligs moves some IP outside the body, where it becomes “OP.” True enough. With certain caveats, I agree with you.

The major caveat is that the gain you measure (difference between the purple lines) is only apparent at low to moderate angles. Increase the tugging angle to 10:30 (a normal erection angle for many guys), and the “gain” goes to zero. Maybe you understand this point already and were only contesting the statement about Assertion 2, which I now agree was a little too narrow.

I do think it’s really important, however, for guys to recognize that lig stretching by itself only results in “gains” at low to mid angles.

Thank you for pursuing the point.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

@remek,

By the way, I have learned since cutting the current revision of the LOT Simulator that there is a ligament called the “subpubic arcuate ligament” that runs from the very base of the pubic symphysis to the shaft. It is apparently a distinct structure from the suspensory ligament and is extremely thick. I doubt most guys could succeed at stretching that ligament.

This finding throws a wrench into the usability of the simulator for predicting behavior with really long ligs, like your 50mm case. I think it also means that expression of IP (using your definition) will be much more limited than the simulator (or your “long ligs” picture) currently suggests.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Modesto,

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
The major caveat is that the gain you measure (difference between the purple lines) is only apparent at low to moderate angles. Increase the tugging angle to 10:30 (a normal erection angle for many guys), and the “gain” goes to zero. Maybe you understand this point already and were only contesting the statement about Assertion 2, which I now agree was a little too narrow.

I do think it’s really important, however, for guys to recognize that lig stretching by itself only results in “gains” at low to mid angles.

Maybe I am the one with a narrow point of view.

The way I see it lig stretching results in gains at all angles. Why do you think this isn’t true?

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Thank you for pursuing the point.

You are welcome. And I want you to know my statements aren’t towards you. I am sure you know this, but I think its worth mentioning. As far as I can tell you are a great guy. My conversations with you have always been helpful and pleasant. You spent a lot of time on this and I know how frustrating it can be when other people have negative attitudes towards your work (for example, the first PE survey).

Either way, my assessments are with the best intentions.


TGC Theory | Who Says The Penis Isn't a Muscle?

"To leave the world a better place, to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived is to succeed." - Emerson

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
@remek,

By the way, I have learned since cutting the current revision of the LOT Simulator that there is a ligament called the “subpubic arcuate ligament” that runs from the very base of the pubic symphysis to the shaft. It is apparently a distinct structure from the suspensory ligament and is extremely thick. I doubt most guys could succeed at stretching that ligament.

Hmmm, interesting. I would like to read more about this. Where did you learn about it?

I think there are quite a few ligaments/structures that aren’t thought about in LOT/PE theory. For example, the testicles are held up by the inguinal ligaments.

In theory, when the exit point is lowered, the balls would have to be lowered too. If not, then sooner or later the penis is extremely close to the testes.
If the balls were to be lowered, then the inguinal ligaments would have to be stretched. I don’t know how likely this is, but as you say it would probably throw a wrench into the whole mix as well.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

This finding throws a wrench into the usability of the simulator for predicting behavior with really long ligs, like your 50mm case. I think it also means that expression of IP (using your definition) will be much more limited than the simulator (or your “long ligs” picture) currently suggests.


The 50 mm case was an extreme. It was set that way to explicity show what happens when the ligaments are lengthed (the inner penis gets shorter).

Btw, IP (inner penis) as I use it is not my definition. It is what it is. Inner means inner, i.e. inside the body. And outer penis means outer, i.e. outside the body. Redefiing the terms to fit a specific case doesn’t make sense.


TGC Theory | Who Says The Penis Isn't a Muscle?

"To leave the world a better place, to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived is to succeed." - Emerson

Originally Posted by remek

The way I see it lig stretching results in gains at all angles. Why do you think this isn’t true?

Go back to your earlier Hi ligs/Lo ligs example and set the tugging angle to 10:30. Run the simulator for both lig lengths. You will see that the extended position of the penis won’t change.

It is only when the penis is hanging down below the pubic symphysis that any extra length is expressed. That is because the shaft is no longer bent as much in the middle, but can be extended straight out less hindered by the ligament.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-19-2006 at .

Originally Posted by remek

Hmmm, interesting. I would like to read more about this. Where did you learn about it?

Here. I thought you said you read this thread several times.

Originally Posted by remek

I think there are quite a few ligaments/structures that aren’t thought about in LOT/PE theory. For example, the testicles are held up by the inguinal ligaments.

In theory, when the exit point is lowered, the balls would have to be lowered too. If not, then sooner or later the penis is extremely close to the testes.

If the balls were to be lowered, then the inguinal ligaments would have to be stretched. I don’t know how likely this is, but as you say it would probably throw a wrench into the whole mix as well.

Good point. There’s also the fundiform ligament, which loops around the sides of the shaft and then fuses with the scrotal septum.

Originally Posted by remek

The 50 mm case was an extreme. It was set that way to explicity show what happens when the ligaments are lengthed (the inner penis gets shorter).

Understood. It would be interesting to rerun that case with a new version of the simulator, if it ever arrives.

Originally Posted by remek

Btw, IP (inner penis) as I use it is not my definition. It is what it is. Inner means inner, i.e. inside the body. And outer penis means outer, i.e. outside the body. Redefiing the terms to fit a specific case doesn’t make sense.

I used a very particular definition of inner penis, which I was very clear about to anyone who carefully read my post. You may prefer not to use it, but it is a valid definition. My statements concerning Assertion 2 of Lot Theory were consistent with my definition. The “mistake,” if you will, was to equate my definition of IP with Bib’s in discussing Bib’s assertion. I now think that Bib probably used the term in a different way, although I’m not sure exactly how. I needed to consider his definition in assessing Assertion 2. I stand corrected.

It is important to point out this mistake, and I’m glad you did. But, so no one misunderstands, I think it is a minor mistake. It does not affect what I think is the more important conclusion, which is that one’s LOT appears not to be an accurate indicator of one’s potential for gains, not even lig gains.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-19-2006 at .

Remek,

One of the reasons I may seem less patient with you than usual is because I have this feeling that you and Bib are discussing this thread on the side, and that you are, in fact, representing his point of view. If you are doing this, please say so.

I have also noticed that your new website includes a link to Bib’s website, in which you identify his product as your recommended hanger:

http://www.exercisingthepenis.com/index.php?page=links

Originally Posted by ExercisingThePenis

Recommended Hangers:

The Bib Hanger

With time, length can be added by hanging weights from the penis. We recommend the BibHanger because you can build it for free! Learn how to build it here. However, if you don’t have the time, nor the resources to build a bib hanger you can buy one from the BibHanger site. To order a Bib Hanger via money order, check, or cash click here. To order a Bib Hanger via credit card, click here. Note: You can save up to 20 percent by ordering a bib hanger via money order, check, or cash.

Are you and Bib working together now? Are you receiving any money in exchange for posting his link or for providing referrals?

As you may have gathered from my posts above, Bib and I do not see eye-to-eye on the subject matter of this thread. For all I know, my position on LOT Theory may be impacting his business. I think it is very important for you to be very honest about your personal and/or commercial ties with Bib if you are going to take a critical position on this thread.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-19-2006 at .

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
It is important to point out this mistake, and I’m glad you did. But, so no one misunderstands, I think it is a minor mistake. It does not affect what I think is the more important conclusion, which is that one’s LOT appears not to be an accurate indicator of one’s potential for gains, not even lig gains.

You might be right. In fact, I’m not even disagreeing with you (I’m not agreeing with you ither — I need more evidence). However, I don’t think the LOT simulator prooved any of this.

As I pointed out, Assertion 2 can be proven with your simulator.

I am also confused about your rebutal to assertion # 1.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
ASSERTION 1 is always false when the length of IP is less than the distance between IR and PS.

I have 3 questions to this.
1) I may have overread this somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. What is the distance between the IR and PS, I didn’t see it stated anywhere.
2) How did you determine this distance?
3) Is this distance consistent in all men?

Look, heart to heart, man to man I think the LOT simulator is a fine piece of programming. I couldn’t even attempt to do that yet. It helps explain a lot about LOT. However, I surely don’t think it says anything about disproving LOT (or proving it). That is my current opinion, and it susceptible to change with further evidence.


TGC Theory | Who Says The Penis Isn't a Muscle?

"To leave the world a better place, to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived is to succeed." - Emerson

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
One of the reasons I may seem less patient with you than usual is because I have this feeling that you and Bib are discussing this thread on the side, and that you are, in fact, representing his point of view. If you are doing this, please say so.

Modesto, I believe I stated my objective in this thread much earlier. I am here for the same reasons as you, to find the truth. I don’t think Bib has been on Thunder’s since he has left. I could be wrong though. But one thing is for certain, I am representing my view, and my view only. If Bib wanted to reply to this thread, he would do it. He wouldn’t ask me to do it for him.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
I have also noticed that your new website includes a link to Bib’s website, in which you identify his product as your recommended hanger:

http://www.exercisingthepenis.com/index.php?page=links

Are you and Bib working together now? Are you receiving any money in exchange for posting his link or for providing referrals?

Bib’s hangers have always been the only hanger recommened on my site. It has been like that since it opened back in October. The reason the BibHanger is the only one up there is because it is the only one that fits the criteria. The PEweights are also recommended on my site. They also fit the criteria.

I receive no money for either of these products. I haven’t requested anything in return (except a link back) and I won’t. My site has been up for 6 months, and I haven’t received a dime for it. In fact, its quite the opposite. My sites main intention is to be free. As you will notice, Thunder’s Place is the first link on my site. While the two products are at the bottom.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
As you may have gathered from my posts above, Bib and I do not see eye-to-eye on the subject matter of this thread. For all I know, my position on LOT Theory may be impacting his business. I think it is very important for you to be very honest about your personal and/or commercial ties with Bib if you are going to take a critical position on this thread.

Bib is what I would consider an online friend. I don’t know him personally, and besides a few sentences here and there, its strictly PE conversation.

We have had probably 60 emails back and forth total (rounding out to approx. 30 per person). These emails can get quite lengthy and quite time consuming. Most of them were about LOT/PE theory. Many of them, I questioned the validity, and he replied with his answers. I think there has been a total of 5 emails about the hangers. Three of them were concerning the hanger I bought last year. Two of them were letting him know I am going to link his site.

I don’t know if Bib sells PE hangers for the money, but he claims they are very time consuming. He also claims the only reason he sells them is because so many men want them. Through this I believe he is saying he doesn’t do it for the money. I don’t know if he makes a lot of money from them, or if he is deceiving the public with these statements. For those answers, you’ll have to ask him.

If you would like any more information about me, my commercial interests, my interest with Bib, feel free to ask.

Now that I have answered your questions. I ask one from you. Did you create the LOT simulator to simulate LOT or disprove/approve it?


TGC Theory | Who Says The Penis Isn't a Muscle?

"To leave the world a better place, to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived is to succeed." - Emerson

Originally Posted by remek
Modesto, I believe I stated my objective in this thread much earlier. I am here for the same reasons as you, to find the truth. I don’t think Bib has been on Thunder’s since he has left. I could be wrong though. But one thing is for certain, I am representing my view, and my view only. If Bib wanted to reply to this thread, he would do it. He wouldn’t ask me to do it for him.

I’m glad to hear that.

Originally Posted by remek
Bib’s hangers have always been the only hanger recommened on my site. It has been like that since it opened back in October. The reason the BibHanger is the only one up there is because it is the only one that fits the criteria. The PEweights are also recommended on my site. They also fit the criteria.


What criteria are those? If you are really serious about promoting a free PE site, why wouldn’t you recommend the Captain’s Wench?

Originally Posted by remek
I receive no money for either of these products. I haven’t requested anything in return (except a link back) and I won’t. My site has been up for 6 months, and I haven’t received a dime for it. In fact, its quite the opposite. My sites main intention is to be free. As you will notice, Thunder’s Place is the first link on my site. While the two products are at the bottom.


I thought you provided a lot of information about payment terms for someone with no commercial interest. What’s the point of your promoting a 20% discount for cash, check, or money order if you have no commercial interest? Are you just providing Bib with free advertising?

Originally Posted by remek
Bib is what I would consider an online friend. I don’t know him personally, and besides a few sentences here and there, its strictly PE conversation.

We have had probably 60 emails back and forth total (rounding out to approx. 30 per person). These emails can get quite lengthy and quite time consuming. Most of them were about LOT/PE theory. Many of them, I questioned the validity, and he replied with his answers. I think there has been a total of 5 emails about the hangers. Three of them were concerning the hanger I bought last year. Two of them were letting him know I am going to link his site.

Ok.

Originally Posted by remek
I don’t know if Bib sells PE hangers for the money, but he claims they are very time consuming. He also claims the only reason he sells them is because so many men want them. Through this I believe he is saying he doesn’t do it for the money. I don’t know if he makes a lot of money from them, or if he is deceiving the public with these statements. For those answers, you’ll have to ask him.


Bib isn’t giving away his hangers. Perhaps he could make more money doing something else with his time, but he certainly turns a handsome profit on each unit sold.

Originally Posted by remek
If you would like any more information about me, my commercial interests, my interest with Bib, feel free to ask.

Now that I have answered your questions. I ask one from you. Did you create the LOT simulator to simulate LOT or disprove/approve it?

I originally created the simulator as an investigational tool. I took on this project while defending Bib’s LOT Theory in a thread here that I can’t seem to find right now (EDIT: Here it is). The idea was to model LOT and show everybody why LOT Theory was valid. At a certain point, I started to think that the simulator was actually showing the opposite of what I had expected. When I thought that I understood the model well enough, I created this thread to report my ideas.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-22-2006 at .

Originally Posted by remek
You might be right. In fact, I’m not even disagreeing with you (I’m not agreeing with you ither — I need more evidence). However, I don’t think the LOT simulator prooved any of this.

As I pointed out, Assertion 2 can be proven with your simulator.

I am also confused about your rebutal to assertion # 1.

I have 3 questions to this.
1) I may have overread this somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. What is the distance between the IR and PS, I didn’t see it stated anywhere.
2) How did you determine this distance?
3) Is this distance consistent in all men?

Look, heart to heart, man to man I think the LOT simulator is a fine piece of programming. I couldn’t even attempt to do that yet. It helps explain a lot about LOT. However, I surely don’t think it says anything about disproving LOT (or proving it). That is my current opinion, and it susceptible to change with further evidence.

Are you going to respond to my point about lig gains only being relevant at low and moderate angles? I tried to respond carefully to your question, and you didn’t acknowledge whether you got it or not.

I spent a great deal of time responding to your earlier questions about Assertion 2. As it turned out, we could have gotten to the bottom of your issue much quicker if you had bothered to read my post more carefully. I had to read between the lines of your posts to figure out for myself that the “problem” you were concerned about was really due to the fact that you and I were operating with a different definition of IP and OP. Why do I have to do all the work?

You posted above that you had read this thread several times. Yet somehow missed the several posts dealing with the Subpubic Arcuate Ligament. Are you putting forth any effort here, or are you expecting simply to launch ill-conceived questions at me and then sit back and watch while I do all the work responding?

I find your response to my efforts to be quite rude, frankly. You’re telling me I don’t have the right to define IP and OP the way I want to in my own simulator! Really. That’s more chutzpah than I like to see in someone asking me to answer his questions. Why not do your homework before you ask questions about something as complicated as this.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:30 AM.