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:
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)
Tell me, o monks; what cannot be achieved through efforts. - Siddhartha Gautama
Last edited by xenolith : 02-22-2006 at .