Thunder's Place

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

Testing LOT Theory

FWIW, I’ve found the recent discussion in this thread very interesting. Mostly due to the consequences in terms of lig gains potential and LOT change indicated as a result of an inclined (~45 degree) PS compared to a vertically oriented PS. This geometrical constraint makes my experience with below LOT hanging and LOT changes much more understandable. There was a time when Modesto and I squabbled about the applicability of LOT Theory, which, BTW, should never have been elevated beyond LOT Hypothesis IMO. Paraphrasing our discussions Modesto, and please correct me if I mis-state your position, I contended that my experience was consistent with LOT Theory and Modesto asserted that I didn’t see large enough gains or lig changes for my experience to be considered consistent with LOT Theory. I never understood Bigger to have specified any quantified relationship between gains and change in LOT, although I seem to recall Modesto indicating something to that effect. In any case, in a qualitative sense, my experience has been consistent with LOT Theory. I think Modesto agrees with that. However, I now understand where a very reasonable, IMO, argument can be made against lig sourced gains and LOT change. Modesto has already articulated it very succinctly:

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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”.


The geometry of the PS, shaft, and ‘effective lig’ constrains the amount of penis release by virtue of the fact that as the effective (load bearing) ligs are released to lower PS attachment points, these locations are also more interior attachment points. If a sympathetic (to more body proximal) lig relocation process along the shaft is effected by our below LOT hanging/stretching, which I think Modesto thinks occurs and which seems reasonable to me, then what gains we may realize are due to that lig attachment point relocation, not the one on the PS.

In short, great stuff Modesto. Thanks again for all of your hard work on this subject. I know I’ve learned much due to your efforts.

Can I get my PS rolfed into a more vertical alignment? :)


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama


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

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


The criteria is:
a) It has to have been used and approved by me for at least a month
b) It has to have good public reviews, i.e. other people have to claim that it works and it is good

The Captain’s Wench is probably a really good design. I tried to make it over a year ago and failed miserably. Thus, it didn’t fit category A. This is no hard feelings towards the Cap, because my construction abilities weren’t that good at the time. Crash has made a hanger and requested that I added it to my site. I turned him down. This isn’t because I dislike the guy or his hanger. He fits category b (for the most part), but I haven’t tried it, so I surely can’t recommend it. He says he will send me a hanger to try out, and I will. When I try it out, if I deem it useful then I will add it. Any other hanger maker can do the same (e.g. tps and the redi-stretcher).

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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?


Well my friend, thats because those are two different websites, ran by two different people. Both of them are not Bib. That was my attempt to make sure the “extra money” gets in the hands that I would prefer it. If you want to know the two website owners, you will have to contact Bib.

It was also my attempt to save the viewer a 20 percent. And to correct myself, one of the sites is being shut down because Bib has recently had a bad dealing with the site owner.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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.

Oh, I completely agree. I’ve done the math, and he probably has made a nice profit. But you also have to take into account is it worth it? I don’t know how much Bib makes on his real job, but if he makes good money (i.e. 100k+ a year), then the hangers surely aren’t worth the money. Or maybe they are. But if he’s in it for the money, he should have stuck to the pills. Those Longitudinal guys are the ones who ran off with millions.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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.

This is good. The reason I ask this is because you seem to be going off in the other direction (in other words, off topic). I don’t mind speaking about my site, nor my relationship with Bib, but it seems a little bit much too me. I’m trying to discuss LOT theory, and PE theory, and your questioning my validity as a speaker. In science, anyone’s opinion should matter — as long as it is thoughtful. Whether it be a pill pusher or a newbie, its the comments/actions that should be judged, not the person saying them.

I have to go now, but I see you have another post. I will be back at it as soon as possible.

- remek


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

Quote
Well my friend, thats because those are two different websites, ran by two different people. Both of them are not Bib. That was my attempt to make sure the “extra money” gets in the hands that I would prefer it. If you want to know the two website owners, you will have to contact Bib.

It was also my attempt to save the viewer a 20 percent. And to correct myself, one of the sites is being shut down because Bib has recently had a bad dealing with the site owner.

Ah the bibhangers -> bibhanger thing. Useful info to have that (at the time) for anyone buying a Bib.

Remek, You should construct and AFB as well as a wench.


Thunder's Place: increasing penis size one dick at a time.

Originally Posted by xenolith

FWIW, I’ve found the recent discussion in this thread very interesting. Mostly due to the consequences in terms of lig gains potential and LOT change indicated as a result of an inclined (~45 degree) PS compared to a vertically oriented PS. This geometrical constraint makes my experience with below LOT hanging and LOT changes much more understandable. There was a time when Modesto and I squabbled about the applicability of LOT Theory, which, BTW, should never have been elevated beyond LOT Hypothesis IMO.

I’ll stop you right there. Brilliant! LOT Theory was never more than a collection of conclusory remarks made without describing or explaining an underlying mechanism. Bib never showed his work. When Bib and I were discussing my findings of this thread, Bib made a big point of saying that the standard of proof that I would have to meet to disprove LOT Theory was very high, since LOT Theory was already well established. That always struck me as strange, considering that he apparently did not have to meet any particular standard of proof to establish his “theory.”

Originally Posted by xeno

Paraphrasing our discussions Modesto, and please correct me if I mis-state your position, I contended that my experience was consistent with LOT Theory and Modesto asserted that I didn’t see large enough gains or lig changes for my experience to be considered consistent with LOT Theory. I never understood Bigger to have specified any quantified relationship between gains and change in LOT, although I seem to recall Modesto indicating something to that effect. In any case, in a qualitative sense, my experience has been consistent with LOT Theory. I think Modesto agrees with that. However, I now understand where a very reasonable, IMO, argument can be made against lig sourced gains and LOT change. Modesto has already articulated it very succinctly:

With the default settings of the model, it is true that longer ligs correspond to lower LOTs. But the change is LOT is so very small that I think most guys could never measure it. And it’s not always the case that LOT gets lower when ligs get longer. For example, LOT actually gets higher as ligs get longer, when the length of IP is less than the distance between IR and PS (using my definitions—see my response to Assertion 1 for an explanation of what this means).

Originally Posted by xeno

The geometry of the PS, shaft, and ‘effective lig’ constrains the amount of penis release by virtue of the fact that as the effective (load bearing) ligs are released to lower PS attachment points, these locations are also more interior attachment points. If a sympathetic (to more body proximal) lig relocation process along the shaft is effected by our below LOT hanging/stretching, which I think Modesto thinks occurs and which seems reasonable to me, then what gains we may realize are due to that lig attachment point relocation, not the one on the PS.

The gains we see by moving back the attachment point are the result of rotating the portion of the shaft that was previously closely bound the PS down from it’s initial angled position to a horizontal position. The actual gain measured from the crest of the PS will be PSG*(1-cos(theta)), where PSG is the amount of shaft peeled from the face of the PS and theta is the angle of the shaft before lig stretching.

Note that theta is normally less than 45-degrees, so the gains will be even lower than I previously suggested. If theta = 30 degrees, one stands to gain only 0.133” by peeling back 1” from the PS. Remember that theta is the angle of the shaft as it passes in front of the PS. It is not the angle of the PS.

What this means, I think, is that most “lig gains” people measure are caused by the fact that the lower attachment points along the PS allow the ruler to pushed in farther.

Originally Posted by xeno

Can I get my PS rolfed into a more vertical alignment? :)

If it’s physically possible, I’m sure you’ll find a way.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


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

Originally Posted by remek

The reason I ask this is because you seem to be going off in the other direction (in other words, off topic). I don’t mind speaking about my site, nor my relationship with Bib, but it seems a little bit much too me. I’m trying to discuss LOT theory, and PE theory, and your questioning my validity as a speaker. In science, anyone’s opinion should matter — as long as it is thoughtful. Whether it be a pill pusher or a newbie, its the comments/actions that should be judged, not the person saying them.

I don’t think it’s off topic to explore people’s biases. On the other hand, your one-on-one conversation with SimonClass seems a bit off-topic to me.

I haven’t been keeping up with all of your advice to SimonClass, but I did happen to see this particular nugget, which I found priceless:

Originally Posted by remek

Personally, when I read things like the quote below, I tend to lean towards LOT theory being more right than not. Right now I am at the point where I think much more discussion is needed because it was “put to rest” a while ago, but with reasons that don’t make sense to me.

Originally Posted by anonymous

I've been trying to enlarge my penis for 3+ years, started pumping for one year, did jelqs for about a month, but never got into it, because I found hanging, then hung for 1 year= no results. Hung for another 7 months W/ ADS =0 results. At the end of 2005 learned the LOT theory and am gaining since.

So, this is your scientific method? Some anonymous person makes some anecdotal, vague statement, and that makes all the difference to you? Sorry to be mean, but that’s just laughable.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

Note that theta is normally less than 45-degrees, so the gains will be even lower than I previously suggested. If theta = 30 degrees, one stands to gain only 0.133” by peeling back 1” from the PS. Remember that theta is the angle of the shaft as it passes in front of the PS. It is not the angle of the PS.

A little clarification please. Theta is the angle of the shaft with respect to the PS right?

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

What this means, I think, is that most “lig gains” people measure are caused by the fact that the lower attachment points along the PS allow the ruler to pushed in farther.

Roger that. Makes sense. I now think that there are three means of obtaining ‘gains’ from below LOT hanging (or stretching), 1) from peeling back ligs along the face of the PS (coupled with the peeling of ligs along the shaft), 2) from elongation of tissues within of the shaft, and 3) the ability to place the end of the ruler at a more interior to the body position, i.e. lower down the face of the PS. Regarding the former, well, I still haven’t played around with the Sim to see how well my data conforms to your assertions regarding the expected magnitude of lig gains and associated LOT changes, but intuitively I recognize the validity of your argument. And I’m sure my data would be reasonably, if not very well modeled, by the Sim. Regarding the second means, I now think thats where at least half of what I previously was attributing to lig gains were actually sourced. I WILL play with the Sim to try to determine that fraction, at least as indicated by the model. And I understand the latter means to be questionable as a ‘gain’, as its more a change in datum than a change in dimension, at least with respect to the the pre-lig peeling datum. Please comment Modesto.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

If it’s physically possible, I’m sure you’ll find a way.

:) . I think I better stick to the more pliable tissues.


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama

Sorry mem, I missed this before.

Originally Posted by memento
Ah the bibhangers -> bibhanger thing. Useful info to have that (at the time) for anyone buying a Bib.

Absolultely. There is also a link to the “How to Construct a BibHanger” guide over here.

Originally Posted by memento
Remek, You should construct and AFB as well as a wench.

I made a Chicken Choker a few years ago. It was a mighty-fine task, but the process was fun. The hanger didn’t work to good for me though. Maybe it was my fault, i.e. I didn’t construct a good hanger, but I could never hold more than 3 pounds on it.

When I get some time, hopefully I can spend some time perfecting a few good home-made hangers. Then I could give some good recommendations on those. Either way, I agree some instructions on building home-made hangers is something that should be added to the site.

- remek


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 xenolith

A little clarification please. Theta is the angle of the shaft with respect to the PS right?

Theta is the angle of the shaft referenced to horizontal (9 o’clock). So, if the shaft naturally forms an angle of 30-degrees above horizontal as it passes under the pubic symphysis, theta will be 30-degrees. This is true even if the front face of the pubic symphysis naturally forms a steeper angle, say, 45-degrees. Since the susp. lig. is generally longer in front than in back, it is generally the case, I think, that theta will be less than the angle of the PS.

This means that one will gain even less than the 0.3” that I indicated above, as a result of stripping the shaft back 1” from the face of the PS. This was a mistake, because it didn’t take into account the way that the shaft hangs down from the PS.

It’s a little discouraging, actually.

Originally Posted by xenolith

Roger that. Makes sense. I now think that there are three means of obtaining ‘gains’ from below LOT hanging (or stretching), 1) from peeling back ligs along the face of the PS (coupled with the peeling of ligs along the shaft), 2) from elongation of tissues within of the shaft, and 3) the ability to place the end of the ruler at a more interior to the body position, i.e. lower down the face of the PS. Regarding the former, well, I still haven’t played around with the Sim to see how well my data conforms to your assertions regarding the expected magnitude of lig gains and associated LOT changes, but intuitively I recognize the validity of your argument. And I’m sure my data would be reasonably, if not very well modeled, by the Sim. Regarding the second means, I now think thats where at least half of what I previously was attributing to lig gains were actually sourced. I WILL play with the Sim to try to determine that fraction, at least as indicated by the model. And I understand the latter means to be questionable as a ‘gain’, as its more a change in datum than a change in dimension, at least with respect to the the pre-lig peeling datum. Please comment Modesto.

You are getting it. This all assumes a BPEL measurement in a 9 o’clock position with the ruler pushed in as far and as low as possible. Using my example above, with a 45-degree angled PS and a 30-degree initially angled shaft, the effect of peeling back the ligs 1” along the face of the PS would yield—

  • 0.133” at 9 o’clock due to straightening out the previously angled portion of the shaft
  • 0.707” at 9 o’clock due to being able to push in the ruler farther
  • Some unknown amount due to actual shaft growth
As I write this, I need to add that I have some doubts about this idea that the shaft is actually “peeled back,” quite as I’m describing it. That was actually one of Bib’s ideas, which I adopted for purposes of discussion with him. Every anatomy drawing I have ever seen of the susp. lig. shows it having a fairly substantial length. This means the shaft may not really “peel back,” so much as pull farther away from the PS. Because most lig stretching is done at very low angles (SD or BTC), one would expect the most forward lig fibers to stretch the most and those farthest back to stretch the least. Maybe it doesn’t matter much in the context of this discussion, but I wanted to make the point clear and to invite people to reach their own conclusions.

Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-24-2006 at .

Thanks Modesto. Regarding “peeling back”, I’ve always thought of, and written of, ligs doing that, as in down the face of the PS or along the shaft, not the shaft itself doing the “peeling back”. I like your description of the shaft “pulling away” from the PS.

I think I’ll have some more questions later.


originally: 6.5" BPEL x 5.0" EG (ms); currently: 9.375" BPEL x 6.75" EG (ms)

Hidden details: Finding xeno: a penis tale; Some photos: Tiger

Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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 am sorry if you feel I am purposely ignoring your statements and questions, because I am not.

Now, I believe you are referring to this statement:

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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.

It took me a little bit of dilly-dallying with the LOT simulator, but I believe I understand what you mean.

If I am wrong, correct me, but I you are saying:

Set the tugging angle to 10:30
The lig attachment point to high (or low — doesn’t matter as long as it is consistent)
And the lig length to 15.

Now, change the length to 50, and you will notice no difference (no change in gains, no change in outer penis, etc.) Is this correct?

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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?

Modesto,
I am sorry that you feel this way. I am putting in a lot of time here as well. I am not trying to cut any corners, nor am I trying to pass work off onto you.

With that said, if you feel that its my fault that you didn’t notify anyone that you changed the definition of inner and outer, then blame it on me for pointing it out.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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 have read this thread three times. Once, a few months after you first posted it — at this point we had a few discussions about this thread (or in particular, the scientific article that you read). A second time in late December of 05’ — when I started my Anatomy PE research. At this point I was very confused, so I took notes throughout the entire thread and the discussions that followed. This took me about two days. I was still confused, so I read more LOT posts, including WestLA’s. I took notes on those too. By January, I wanted more knowledge so I went to Bib. This is where mine and Bib’s primary discussions began. It is also important to note that prior (and during) all of this, I was studying quite a few books on the anatomy (Gray’s, Grant’s, Atlas of the Anatomy, etc).

Looking back at my notes, I noticed that I wrote down the arcuate subpubic ligament (ASL) when reading this thread. I didn’t think much of it at the time because this was the only place I read about it.

I still don’t know much about the ASL. I will have to research it more. But I can assure you that I am putting in the effort — if my 33 pages of LOT theory notes doesn’t ensure you already.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
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.

I’ve done my homework. I don’t see where these statement are coming from. I’m asking legit questions in the most respectful manner. I am sorry you don’t see it that way.

With all due respect, you can redefine anything you want in the LOT simulator. But when someone simulates something and make statements of why that certain something is wrong (because the simulator says so), then that someone better make sure the simulator defines everything in accordance with the thing it is disproving. At least, thats how I see it.

Now, as I stated earlier, I don’t think the LOT simulator can prove or disprove LOT theory. There are way too many variables involved. We are talking about a 3-Dimensional anatomical organ (and counter organs around it), being simulated by a 2-Dimensional program. But this isn’t even the kicker. Because if we set our minds to it, I’m sure we could get it done.

The main problem I see is that the variables that we are trying to simulate is all relative. And with this being a program, we can change it to fit our needs/wants.

IMO, the way to disprove/prove LOT is to knock it out of the water with real 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

It’s getting late, but I wanted to reply to this before the day was out.

Originally Posted by remek

I am sorry if you feel I am purposely ignoring your statements and questions, because I am not.

Now, I believe you are referring to this statement:

It took me a little bit of dilly-dallying with the LOT simulator, but I believe I understand what you mean.

If I am wrong, correct me, but I you are saying:

Set the tugging angle to 10:30

The lig attachment point to high (or low — doesn’t matter as long as it is consistent)

And the lig length to 15.

Now, change the length to 50, and you will notice no difference (no change in gains, no change in outer penis, etc.) Is this correct?

Yes. What do you make of it?

Originally Posted by remek

I am sorry that you feel this way. I am putting in a lot of time here as well. I am not trying to cut any corners, nor am I trying to pass work off onto you.

With that said, if you feel that its my fault that you didn’t notify anyone that you changed the definition of inner and outer, then blame it on me for pointing it out.

I only blaming you for criticizing my definition and saying it was not legitimate. I didn’t exactly fail to inform anyone. The definitions of IP and OP appear at the very top of the LOT Simulator:

Originally Posted by LOT Simulator
  • Heavy line means structure is under tension.
  • Light line means structure is lax.
  • Attachment Point is where ligs attach to shaft.
  • Ligs extend from Pubic Symphysis to Attachment Point.
  • Inner penis spans from Ischiopubic Ramus to Attachment Point.
  • Outer penis spans from Attachment Point to Glans.
  • Tugback is simulated by shortening the BC Muscle by the Tugback Strength. Click the “Kegel” button to simulate tugback. Click it again to relax.

Originally Posted by remek

I have read this thread three times. Once, a few months after you first posted it — at this point we had a few discussions about this thread (or in particular, the scientific article that you read). A second time in late December of 05’ — when I started my Anatomy PE research. At this point I was very confused, so I took notes throughout the entire thread and the discussions that followed. This took me about two days. I was still confused, so I read more LOT posts, including WestLA’s. I took notes on those too. By January, I wanted more knowledge so I went to Bib.

Why did you assume that talking to Bib would get you more knowledge?

Originally Posted by remek

This is where mine and Bib’s primary discussions began. It is also important to note that prior (and during) all of this, I was studying quite a few books on the anatomy (Gray’s, Grant’s, Atlas of the Anatomy, etc).

Bib shared his explanation of LOT Theory in an email to me, which I summarized here. It made no sense to me then and makes no sense to me now.

Originally Posted by remek

Looking back at my notes, I noticed that I wrote down the arcuate subpubic ligament (ASL) when reading this thread. I didn’t think much of it at the time because this was the only place I read about it.

I still don’t know much about the ASL. I will have to research it more. But I can assure you that I am putting in the effort — if my 33 pages of LOT theory notes doesn’t ensure you already.

The ASL is an obscure feature that most texts don’t mention. I honestly had no idea that you were expending so much effort in studying LOT Theory. Perhaps that explains why you think you know so much about it.

Originally Posted by remek

I’ve done my homework. I don’t see where these statement are coming from. I’m asking legit questions in the most respectful manner. I am sorry you don’t see it that way.

You haven’t done homework on this thread or the LOT Simulator thread. From where I stand, it sounds like you think you know more than anybody else and don’t have to bother studying this thread.

Originally Posted by remek

With all due respect, you can redefine anything you want in the LOT simulator. But when someone simulates something and make statements of why that certain something is wrong (because the simulator says so), then that someone better make sure the simulator defines everything in accordance with the thing it is disproving. At least, thats how I see it.

As I have said now many times, this is a valuable point and I agree with you. I plan to go back and annotate my response to Assertion 2 to reflect the legitimate concern that you have raised.

Originally Posted by remek

Now, as I stated earlier, I don’t think the LOT simulator can prove or disprove LOT theory. There are way too many variables involved. We are talking about a 3-Dimensional anatomical organ (and counter organs around it), being simulated by a 2-Dimensional program. But this isn’t even the kicker. Because if we set our minds to it, I’m sure we could get it done.

The main problem I see is that the variables that we are trying to simulate is all relative. And with this being a program, we can change it to fit our needs/wants.

Is this you talking, or Bib? This is exactly what Bib said to me. Actually, Bib said the model was brilliant and a wonderful visual depiction of LOT and LOT Theory—until I told him that the model’s behavior didn’t agree with his theory. Then it became a horribly limited model, which couldn’t possibly represent the reality of a biological organ.

It’s funny how these things work.

I admit that the model is limited. I admit that a 2D model cannot always accurately represent a 3D structure. But the fact is that engineers and scientists use 2D models all the time to represent 3D objects, and they do it with great success.

As I understand it, LOT is not a very difficult concept. In fact, it is a simple geometry problem that can easily be modeled in 2D.

The model is weak in a couple of respects. The first is that the fundiform ligament is not considered. As far as I know, neither Bib nor anybody else considered the effect of this ligament. Second, the suspensory ligament is represented too simply. It needs to be represented with at least 2 strands. I’m working on that fix, but I currently have no plans to include a fundiform lig in the model.

There might be other anatomical structures that come into play, which are not modeled. I don’t think so, but it’s possible.

Originally Posted by remek

IMO, the way to disprove/prove LOT is to knock it out of the water with real evidence.

Another Bib quote. Let me ask you something. Why would you believe this “theory” in the first place? We have no bio-mechanical model that supports LOT Theory, and we have no statistics that show that it’s even a real phenomenon. As Xeno said, calling it a “theory” gives LOT Theory too much credit. It’s just an unproven hypothesis.

It was only Bib’s god-like status around here that allowed this hypothesis to bypass all critical thinking and be fast-tracked past theory and directly to fact. If anyone besides Bib had put forth this idea, it would have been quaintly ignored.

Yet, this “theory” has been inflated to such an extent that you and others believe it can only be disproven with overwhelming evidence. Why is such a large burden required to disprove it, when Bib never met his burden of proving it?

From the purely scientific point of view, I agree that the model is not sufficient to disprove LOT Theory. However, the model does provide a strong indication that the theory may be largely invalid.

I think the model also switches the burden of persuasion back to Bib (or whoever wishes to defend the theory). The burden is on him (or you) to prove that it’s real.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-25-2006 at .

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
So, this is your scientific method? Some anonymous person makes some anecdotal, vague statement, and that makes all the difference to you? Sorry to be mean, but that’s just laughable.

Reading this, I am wondering if you have read anything I have stated here. I know you’ve read it, heck you even replied to it. But you don’t seem to belive (or want to believe) my intentions.

I’ll say it once more: my scientific method involves the truth (i.e. real evidence). I think its very obvious that my evidence wasn’t what you quoted. It was an example of why I think this theory is important to study. And it wasn’t the only quote I have read with similar experiences. While reading the LOT theory, there had been tons of quotes like that one.

Look, you seem to be getting more and more upset these past few posts. This is turning into disrespectful accusations and smacks to the face (such as the one above) that are unncessary. If you continue to do these things, I will leave this thread and seek the truth elsewhere. This may in fact, be what you want — and if it is, just let me know.


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

Remek,

The reason for my aggressive stance with you is that I feel that you behavior on this thread has been unruly. You responded to a question that SimonClass asked me and seemed to step into this thread as a guest expert who wasn’t invited. You have not answered questions I have asked you and don’t appear to have carefully read this thread or the simulator thread, which you are now criticizing. I have put a great many hours into this thread and the simulator and simply don’t want you running over it like a bull in a china shop.

I welcome focused, intelligent criticism. I have said many times that I am grateful to you for pointing out that my response to Assertion 2 was too narrow. More of that type of input is welcome.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Yes. What do you make of it?

These are my observations and opinions:

In LOT Theory (or LOT hypothesis) PE theory, I don’t think it will work the way the LOT simulator portrays it.

The exit point is a very important factor. If the exit point is moved, the entire lig theory is thrown off. I attached two different pictures below. They are the way I see it happening.

The key points to look for when looking at the pictures are:
The exit point stays the same
The lig length stays the same

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
I only blaming you for criticizing my definition and saying it was not legitimate. I didn’t exactly fail to inform anyone. The definitions of IP and OP appear at the very top of the LOT Simulator:

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Why did you assume that talking to Bib would get you more knowledge?

In my eyes, when dealing with LOT theory there are two important factors.
1) Its validity. It is either right or wrong; truthful or factual; correct or misconstrued.
2) A LOT theory article(s) that I am writing.

Talking to anyone gets you more knowledge. Knowledge is very attainable, it just has to be worked for. Why did you go to Bib? Because its his theory (or hypothesis). And who better to get knowledge about the LOT theory than from the creator? You might say my opinions are biased because I talked to him, but as I stated before I have no bias. I don’t particularly believe/disbelieve in the theory, yet. Either way, when dealing with a mass LOT theory article, I need to make sure my understandings are correct.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Bib shared his explanation of LOT Theory in an email to me, which I summarized here. It made no sense to me then and makes no sense to me now.

Yes, I read that post. It is similar to your statement before (that the angle of the PS is different than Bib describes it). In an essence, I said I agreed with you, and I still do. But there is definitely a lot of variety on the topic. Some depictions show the PS like the face of a clock (as Bib describes it), while others show it as you describe it. I am hoping to further my knowledge on this subject in time.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
The ASL is an obscure feature that most texts don’t mention. I honestly had no idea that you were expending so much effort in studying LOT Theory. Perhaps that explains why you think you know so much about it.

More subtle low-blows… Perhaps my studying is what lead me to point out the limitations of the simulator. Limitations, which you have yet to defend.


Originally Posted by ModestoMan
You haven’t done homework on this thread or the LOT Simulator thread. From where I stand, it sounds like you think you know more than anybody else and don’t have to bother studying this thread.

Again, I don’t understand where statements like these come from. I don’t pretend to know anything. I state what I know. Perhaps you know more than I, perhaps you do not. I think this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand. I’m here pointing out reasons of why I think the LOT simulator doesn’t disprove the LOT theory.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
As I have said now many times, this is a valuable point and I agree with you. I plan to go back and annotate my response to Assertion 2 to reflect the legitimate concern that you have raised.

Ok. But now where does the LOT theory stand in accordance with the simulator? Is it disproved? Personally, I think not.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

Is this you talking, or Bib?

Again, it is me, and only me.

As I stated earlier, I request that you stop with these accusations. I am trying to focus on the simulator, and you are constantly throwing red-herring arguments at me.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

This is exactly what Bib said to me. Actually, Bib said the model was brilliant and a wonderful visual depiction of LOT and LOT Theory—until I told him that the model’s behavior didn’t agree with his theory. Then it became a horribly limited model, which couldn’t possibly represent the reality of a biological organ.

It’s funny how these things work.

I admit that the model is limited. I admit that a 2D model cannot always accurately represent a 3D structure. But the fact is that engineers and scientists use 2D models all the time to represent 3D objects, and they do it with great success.

Sure, scientists simulate 3D objects all the time. But I’m pretty sure they don’t disprove/prove theories(or hypotheses) with the simulator (unless the accusations are fairly obvious and can be proved without the 2D simulator).

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

As I understand it, LOT is not a very difficult concept. In fact, it is a simple geometry problem that can easily be modeled in 2D.

The model is weak in a couple of respects. The first is that the fundiform ligament is not considered. As far as I know, neither Bib nor anybody else considered the effect of this ligament. Second, the suspensory ligament is represented too simply. It needs to be represented with at least 2 strands. I’m working on that fix, but I currently have no plans to include a fundiform lig in the model.

There might be other anatomical structures that come into play, which are not modeled. I don’t think so, but it’s possible.

And there is always the chance that we could model something wrong.
Why not use real-life tests?
For example,
1) Get a group of men. Instruct these men to start at 12 o’clock and stretch. Where do they feel the stretch? Mark it down. Go to 11 o’clock, and do the same. Do this all the way down to 6 o clock. Now, if LOT theory holds, then at a certain points the stretch should be felt in either a) the ligs or b) the penis/inner penis/ tunica. At what point does the PEer feel the stretch in the ligs? It should be somewhere around their LOT. After they do the stretch-feel test, then instruct them to take their LOT test. Is it accurate?

2)Get a group of men. Find their exit points (to the best of their abilities). Get their LOT tests. Do these two correlate.
3)Get a group of men with very loose/cut ligs (i.e. post-op surgery), and check their LOT. Do their LOTs correlate with their loose/cut ligaments?

These are just some tests off the top of my head, but I am sure there can be more done.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

IMO, the way to disprove/prove LOT is to knock it out of the water with real evidence.”

Another Bib quote.

Again, this isn’t a quote from Bib. It is a statement. It is what I believe. I again ask that you stop distracting the main topic with these type of statements.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

Let me ask you something. Why would you believe this “theory” in the first place? We have no bio-mechanical model that supports LOT Theory, and we have no statistics that show that it’s even a real phenomenon. As Xeno said, calling it a “theory” gives LOT Theory too much credit. It’s just an unproven hypothesis.

First, I agree with xeno, it is an unproven hypothesis.
Second, again, I don’t believe/disbelieve in LOT hypothesis. But quite frankly, I don’t think its been given enough observation to prove/disprove it. As you said, there have been no statistics.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

It was only Bib’s god-like status around here that allowed this hypothesis to bypass all critical thinking and be fast-tracked past theory and directly to fact. If anyone besides Bib had put forth this idea, it would have been quaintly ignored.

Yet, this “theory” has been inflated to such an extent that you and others believe it can only be disproven with overwhelming evidence. Why is such a large burden required to disprove it, when Bib never met his burden of proving it?

I believe it should be tested. Hopefully with these tests evidence can build up. And maybe, just maybe, we can either:
a) Say wow, this LOT theory has absolutely no correlation with lig/inner penis/etc
b) Wow, what an amazing thing, LOT theory has correlation
c) Wtf? LOT theory shows correlation some times, but at other times it does not. In this case, more testing would obviously be required.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan

From the purely scientific point of view, I agree that the model is not sufficient to disprove LOT Theory. However, the model does provide a strong indication that the theory may be largely invalid.

Again, I disagree. My resistance is widely open for discussion. If you can come up with any type of defense (against my claims about assertion 1 & 2), then I am opt to change my opinion. But for now it stands. And hopefully, in time, we can all take part in testing this hypothesis.

Attached Images
lowtuggingangle.JPG
(19.7 KB, 29 views)
hightuggingangle.JPG
(39.7 KB, 25 views)

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

These are my observations and opinions:

In LOT Theory (or LOT hypothesis) PE theory, I don’t think it will work the way the LOT simulator portrays it.

The exit point is a very important factor. If the exit point is moved, the entire lig theory is thrown off. I attached two different pictures below. They are the way I see it happening.

The key points to look for when looking at the pictures are:

The exit point stays the same

The lig length stays the same

I looked at your pictures, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to show. Please explain. Especially, please explain how the brown line (apparently part of the shaft) is connected to the more internal portions of the shaft. I’m not getting it.

Originally Posted by remek

I stand corrected.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by remek

In my eyes, when dealing with LOT theory there are two important factors.

1) Its validity. It is either right or wrong; truthful or factual; correct or misconstrued.

2) A LOT theory article(s) that I am writing.

I’m not sure how your article comes into play, but I am curious to find out.

Originally Posted by remek

Talking to anyone gets you more knowledge. Knowledge is very attainable, it just has to be worked for. Why did you go to Bib? Because its his theory (or hypothesis). And who better to get knowledge about the LOT theory than from the creator? You might say my opinions are biased because I talked to him, but as I stated before I have no bias. I don’t particularly believe/disbelieve in the theory, yet. Either way, when dealing with a mass LOT theory article, I need to make sure my understandings are correct.

Everyone has a bias, Remek. You may be biased by the fact that you have already spent a lot of time researching and writing an article. I am biased by a bad experience I had with Bib.

Originally Posted by remek

Yes, I read that post. It is similar to your statement before (that the angle of the PS is different than Bib describes it). In an essence, I said I agreed with you, and I still do. But there is definitely a lot of variety on the topic. Some depictions show the PS like the face of a clock (as Bib describes it), while others show it as you describe it. I am hoping to further my knowledge on this subject in time.

What’s more important than the shape of the PS is the fact that the ligs generally hang down some distance from the PS. This makes the shape of the PS less relevant. It is also highly relevant that the kegeling force comes from behind and below the PS.

Originally Posted by remek

More subtle low-blows… Perhaps my studying is what lead me to point out the limitations of the simulator. Limitations, which you have yet to defend.

What have I not defended?

Originally Posted by remek

Ok. But now where does the LOT theory stand in accordance with the simulator? Is it disproved? Personally, I think not.

I think it shows that, at some tugging angles, stretching the ligs allows more IP to be expressed outside the body. At other tugging angles, it doesn’t. I think it also shows that “lig gains” are only apparent at medium to low angles. Also, in view of the ASL, real gains may be very difficult to attain by lig stretching. Most of the gains people measure may be illusory—just the fact that they can push the ruler in farther.

Originally Posted by remek

As I stated earlier, I request that you stop with these accusations. I am trying to focus on the simulator, and you are constantly throwing red-herring arguments at me.

You made a big point of criticising me for not defining IP and OP, when the definitions were clearly laid out at the very top of the LOT Simulator thread. So this has gone both ways.

However, as you can tell by the restraint I am showing with my responses here, I am willing to cut the crap if you are.

Originally Posted by remek

Sure, scientists simulate 3D objects all the time. But I’m pretty sure they don’t disprove/prove theories(or hypotheses) with the simulator (unless the accusations are fairly obvious and can be proved without the 2D simulator).

Simulators are models that inform people about how things work. In this context, where the penis really does operate primarily in one plane, I think a 2D representation is a good first order approximation of reality. It is true that the crura of the penis extend to the sides to attach to the ischiopubic rami, but the angle is not steep. Although the kegeling force is not directed exactly in the plane of the figure, a component of that force can be projected onto the plane without sacrificing accuracy, I think. The fundiform ligament is a bit of an unknown. However, I think it can be modeled in 2D as well (although I’m not doing it), since it basically performs a function of holding up the penis.

You are certainly correct that the model cannot by itself prove or disprove anything. But I think it can inform people of reality when taken in connection with other information and evidence.

Originally Posted by remek

And there is always the chance that we could model something wrong.

Certainly.

Originally Posted by remek

Why not use real-life tests?

For example,

1) Get a group of men. Instruct these men to start at 12 o’clock and stretch. Where do they feel the stretch? Mark it down. Go to 11 o’clock, and do the same. Do this all the way down to 6 o clock. Now, if LOT theory holds, then at a certain points the stretch should be felt in either a) the ligs or b) the penis/inner penis/ tunica. At what point does the PEer feel the stretch in the ligs? It should be somewhere around their LOT. After they do the stretch-feel test, then instruct them to take their LOT test. Is it accurate?

It’s probably close, although I think it might err on the high side, especially if the guys being tested have a long tugback length.

Originally Posted by remek

2)Get a group of men. Find their exit points (to the best of their abilities). Get their LOT tests. Do these two correlate.

Interesting. I have no idea.

Originally Posted by remek

3)Get a group of men with very loose/cut ligs (i.e. post-op surgery), and check their LOT. Do their LOTs correlate with their loose/cut ligaments?

Based on my understanding, people with truly severed ligs should never lose tugback. Actually, they might because other tissues will probably tend to hold up the shaft.

Originally Posted by remek

These are just some tests off the top of my head, but I am sure there can be more done.

Are you suggesting a survey?

Originally Posted by remek

First, I agree with xeno, it is an unproven hypothesis.

Second, again, I don’t believe/disbelieve in LOT hypothesis. But quite frankly, I don’t think its been given enough observation to prove/disprove it. As you said, there have been no statistics.

Right. There have actually been some statistics, which Bib reported in his initial thread. But those were based on a very small sample size.

Originally Posted by remek

I believe it should be tested. Hopefully with these tests evidence can build up. And maybe, just maybe, we can either:

a) Say wow, this LOT theory has absolutely no correlation with lig/inner penis/etc

b) Wow, what an amazing thing, LOT theory has correlation

c) Wtf? LOT theory shows correlation some times, but at other times it does not. In this case, more testing would obviously be required.

That would be great.

Originally Posted by remek

Again, I disagree. My resistance is widely open for discussion. If you can come up with any type of defense (against my claims about assertion 1 & 2), then I am opt to change my opinion. But for now it stands. And hopefully, in time, we can all take part in testing this hypothesis.

I’ve already responded to assertion 2 (EDIT: I’ve also updated my response at the top of this thread). I’m not sure what the issue is with assertion 1. Could you elaborate?


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.


Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-25-2006 at .
Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48 AM.