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.
Yes, absolutely. First, I want to note that these are my observations, of course.
The simulator is currently set-up in a linear model. It doesn’t take into account the curves and angles of the inner penis. I attached a picture, and this is the way I see it.
This is how I believe the inner/outer shaft is connected. I tried simulating this from a another picture, which is attached for observational purposes.
Basically, I don’t think the outer penis, as I define it, shrinks at higher angles. I can’t see how this is possible because the exit point would change as a result.
I’m not sure how your article comes into play, but I am curious to find out.
Simply put, it will help answer many questions regarding LOT. I don’t think a lot of people understand LOT theory. Furthermore, I think it is time we either a)confirm the theory or b) put it to rest. In this, the article will also display any findings that I come across when we test the LOT theory.
For this reason, the article won’t debut for a while. I haven’t started writing the article(s) yet, and that I probably won’t until I have more time to think and act upon LOT theory.
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.
I can see what you are saying. Perhaps that is why you took offense to my comments earlier (because you had a bad experience with Bib and believe I am here defending his views). I hope you now understand that this is not the case.
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.
Are you suggesting that the force of the kegel can affect LOT?
What have I not defended?
The three questions I asked earlier about assertion 1. Also, I shouldn’t have used the word defend. I would like to fade out of these type-of attacking words (i.e. you defend, I offend,) and the accusations. In particular, what I meant was that you didn’t answer my questions from earlier.
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.
You may be right. I can surely remember that I pushed the ruler in harder and harder when I was getting to closer marks. For example, when I was at 6.8 inches, I’d be darn if I didn’t want to claim I was 7. So I made sure I pushed that ruler in with all my strength. In the eyes of a man claiming he had a big dick, this method worked very well. However, in the eyes of a man claiming he had grown so many inches, this method was horrible.
However, I don’t think all the gains we obtain are apparitions. If lig stretching is how men accumulate some of their gains, which seems reasonable to me, then maybe the ASL is what makes it more difficult to gain as times goes on. Or maybe with people who naturally have a low LOT, the ASL is why it is so hard for them to gain length at all. This is, of course, speculation. Personally, I think gains are possible from both lig stretching and tunica (i.e. shaft) stretching.
Also, I’ve been searching through my notes and the web and I attached a picture of what seems to be the ASL.
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.
I can definitely see a change in attitude. I thank you for that. I would like to cut the crap. It was never my intention to start a pissing match. I think it would be better for everyone involved in this thread.
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.
I don’t understand what you mean by the fundiform ligament being an unknown. Could you clarify?
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.
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.
What is your take on this? Do you believe it would build evidence for/against (or neither) LOT theory?
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.
Indeed, but it would be interesting to find out the LOT’s of those with severed ligs. There are a few guys in the PE community that went under the knife. They would be a good place to start.
Are you suggesting a survey?
A survey would be good, but that would take a long time. In fact, the second PE survey should be coming along soon (right?), but I don’t think its worth waiting until the results pile up if we can get the same answers now. I suggest questioning several people (e.g. 25-100). From there, the results can be monitored and maybe a correlation can be found.
Right. There have actually been some statistics, which Bib reported in his initial thread. But those were based on a very small sample size.
Yea, I asked Bib for them and he was unable to find them at the time. I might ask him for them again.
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?
I sure can. I am referring to the three questions I asked earlier. They are at the bottom of this post: remek - Testing LOT Theory