Testing LOT Theory
The purpose of this thread is to test LOT Theory using the LOT Simulator.
I have always been confused by LOT theory. Gradually. I came to accept it as plausible, and I even counseled others to hang in accordance with predictions grounded in that theory.
Nevertheless, there has always been doubt. I couldn’t quite put my finger on the problem. So, when knowledgeable guys like WestLA90069 started challenging the theory in this thread, I decided to dig in and see whether I could learn something.
The result of my effort was the LOT Simulator. This program was designed to explore the physical mechanisms involved in LOT. I hoped that, by modeling the penis in relation to the structures to which it is attached, I could learn what really caused LOT. This would certainly shed some light on the validity of LOT Theory.
LIMITATIONS OF THE SIMULATOR
Before testing LOT Theory with the simulator, it is necessary first to acknowledge that the simulator is limited. Here is a list of the known limitations of the model. No doubt there are others.
At present, I believe that these limitations are not fatal to the model, i.e., they are not so serious as to render the model useless as an investigational tool. Others may disagree. Over time the deficiencies in the model can be corrected. For now, I’ll go ahead and draw what conclusions I think are fair. The program is open source, so anyone can take a stab at improving it. When the model is improved, the results reported below can be updated.
TESTING THE THEORY
LOT Theory is actually a collection of four different assertions, which I’ve drawn from Bib’s original post and included below. Each assertion is tested against the simulation.
ASSERTION 1: The shorter, tighter or higher the ligs, the higher the angle required to lose ‘tugback’ when stretching the penis and kegaling at the same time.
ASSERTION 2. The shorter, tighter, or higher the ligs, the more ‘inner’ penis, and the more quick, easy gains which are possible, and possibly the more total gains which are possible as the ligs are lengthened. The longer, looser, or lower the ligs, the less ‘inner’ penis, and the harder the gains and possibly less total gains which are possible.SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Not necessarily true. In particular, it appears that ASSERTION 1 is always true when the length of IP (the inner penis) is greater than the distance between the IR (ischiopubic ramus) and the attachment point on the PS (pubic symphysis). However, ASSERTION 1 is always false when the length of IP is less than the distance between IR and PS.
You can try this for yourself. With Lig attachment set to “High,” set the IP length to 105mm. Then, set the lig length to 10, 15, and 20mm. You should see LOT decrease as lig length increases. Now try setting IP to 95mm, and run through the same sequence of lig lengths. Here, you should see LOT actually INCREASING as lig length INCREASES. This is the opposite of ASSERTION 1.
It also appears that LOT does not significantly change with height of the lig attachment to the PS. You can see this by running through the different choices (Low, Middle, and High). It should be noted that, as the attachment point along the PS changes, IP length also changes to retain proper proportions. If IP length were kept fixed for different lig attachment points, larger changes in LOT would be observed. You can experiment with this, as well.
ASSERTION 3: The longer time spent PEing, the lower the angle at which tugback is lost due to a lengthening of the ligs. This assumes PE is performed at lower angles, at least somewhat, by all subjects. The less time spent PEing, the higher the angle at which tugback is lost because ligs have not been stretched.SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Partly true, partly false. It is clear at face value that the length or tightness of the ligaments (as represented in the model) is not relevant to the amount of inner penis. It is rather the attachment point of the ligaments to the shaft which is relevant. This is by definition. The attachment point along the shaft defines which part of the shaft is inner penis and which part is outer penis.
However, the height of the attachment point of the ligaments to the PS does appear to be relevant. This is simply because higher ligs generally coincide with more distal attachment points along the shaft. Again, you can experiment with lig attachment height. Watch what happens to the inner penis and outer penis as you vary this setting between Low, Middle, and High. Set it to Low, and see that the outer penis grows. Set it to high, and see that it shrinks.
It seems reasonable that people with shafts attached high on the PS have more growth potential than those with shafts attached low. By “peeling back” the ligaments along the PS, more shaft can be expressed outside the body, i.e., more IP becomes OP (outer penis).
Whether more highly attached ligaments predict more total gains over time depends on the relative ease of stretching ligs versus tunica. Conventional wisdom is that the ligs are easier to stretch, so this is probably true.
EDIT 25Feb06: This summary is probably too narrow. Stretching the ligs without changing the attachment point does appear to allow the IP to extend farther forward at low to moderate angles, which increases the length of the penis as measured outside the body. This effect is only observable at angles below about 10:30, and is attributable to the fact that the looser ligament allows a bend in the shaft to be straightened. There is no “gain,” however, at angles of 10:30 or above. As a side note, the arcuate subpubic ligament may significantly limit the extent to which the shaft can be pulled entirely away from the pubic symphysis.
ASSERTION 4: For those with shorter, tighter, or higher ligs, a lengthening of the ligs correlates with a lowering of angle of tugback loss, and an increase in penis length.SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Inconclusive. The simulation provides a static snapshot. It does not show how changes occur over time (except to the extent they can be represented as successions of static snapshots).
DISCUSSION:SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Inconclusive, for the same reasons as above. The second part of this assertion is partially confirmed, however. If your shaft is attached high on your PS, stretching your ligs to lower this attachment point will reveal more inner penis, and thus will cause your (outer) penis to get longer.
I recently exchanged some emails with Bib, in which we discussed exactly how the ligs stretch. As Bib described, stretching the ligs for most people really consists of “peeling” them back along the PS. The lig bundles closer to the top of the PS stretch, causing those lower down to bear the load from any applied stretching force. All the while, the shaft stays closely adhered to some part of the pubic bone. It is probably unusual for the shaft to pull away entirely from the pubic bone. Bearing this in mind, “stretching the ligs” really means peeling them back. “Long ligs” really means lower attachment points. Lig bundles, once stretched, just kind of hang there and cease to be functional parts of the arrangement. However, the lower ones generally stay nice and tight.
The model represents the ligs as a single line. It is important to realize that this line corresponds to the specific bundles which bear the stress when hanging down. The model does not show other bundles, which have already been stretched and are just “hanging around.”
Bib found a negative correlation between LOT and time spent PE’ing at low angles. His data were based on a small sample of experienced hangers. I would like to see more data on this before judging whether this is an actual phenomenon. Some people maintain a high LOT even after many years of PE. Looking at the simulation, I can’t immediately see why LOT would change significantly as ligs are stretched or their attachment point to the PS is lowered. Perhaps something else is going on with long-term hangers, which isn’t immediately obvious.
Many newbies, who have never stretched their ligs, are reporting some very low LOTs these days. I believe it is unlikely that these guys already have long ligs. More likely, they’re either measuring wrong or their ligs attach to their shaft more proximally (closer inside the body) than guys with higher LOTs. If this is the case, I would think that initial LOT has little or nothing to do with potential gains.
The parameter that seems to affect LOT the most is IP length. Small changes in IP length cause large changes in LOT. This suggests that LOT is primarily a function of where along the shaft the ligaments attach. If they attach further out, your LOT will be higher; if they attach closer in, it will be lower.
The simulator confirms certain aspects of LOT Theory at the same time that it casts doubt on others.
The simulation confirms that people whose shafts are attached high on their pubic bones have “lig potential.” These people can possibly gain relatively quickly by stretching downwardly.
At the same time, the simulator cast doubt on whether LOT has anything to do with lig length, or even with lig attachment point along the pubic symphysis.
Therefore, the simulator casts doubt on whether one’s LOT can be used as an indicator of lig potential. Having a low LOT does not necessarily mean one has low lig potential. Having a high LOT does not necessarily mean one has high lig potential. The two things appear to have nothing to do with each other.
It is still possible that LOT Theory is correct. However, I certainly don’t believe that all of its assertions are intuitively obvious. Except where noted, LOT Theory no longer immediately strikes me as valid. If the theory is correct, it is because something subtle is going on that the model does not take into account.
Enter your measurements in the PE Database.
Last edited by ModestoMan : 02-25-2006 at .