Chemical PE: The Long Awaited Evidence

Fair enough,

The burden of proof is on me because its my theory.

I will do my best.

:)

As far as TA as limiting factor, I just found something interesting

marinera - Science of PE Posts and Threads. Link Here!

If you find anything directly related to the PE science, please post there a link and an abstrac - or even the full study, if it is not protected (check if it wasn’t posted before).

Post #195 should say:

“if you can prove that: more T = more VEGF then you could prove that:

more VEGF ≠ more dick

Not to interrupt, but the back and forth earlier caught my eye.

Perhaps I can shed some historical context.

You are misunderstanding then. ‘Unseemly’ doesn’t mean ‘large’, it meas ‘not proper’ or ‘inappropriate’.

Quite right.

The late 1800’s, toward the end of Queen Victoria’s reign, is an era renowned for its strict attention to propriety, high morals, decorum and above all modesty; modesty was considered a necessary and highly valued quality of a civilized person… pruderie indeed. That just about covers it.

You could argue either way (after all, you can argue any way you like), but in this way you’d be wrong: he would not have been abnormally self-conscious; the self-consciousness would, in fact, be the norm.

In Western society by the late 1800’s the widespread mores of the culture as to what was acceptable and what was not were extremely narrow. The man was not abnormally self-conscious, the times were.

It is hard for us, with our contemporary viewpoint, to look back on the Victorian era and get such times on a gut level. Today we routinely see women and men walking around in outfits that Victorians would have regarded as beyond scandalous, even if worn in privacy between a legally married husband and wife. If a woman exposed her ankles it was considered extremely racy; her peer group would have judged her as loose if she did. Victoria’s secret, indeed.

Look at the outfits people went swimming in, for example. Women couldn’t wear pants or leggings in the those days - even on the beach. They went into the water carrying a parasol and wearing a dress with a corset and full bustled skirt that covered them to their feet. And a hat.

So, given the times, it’s important to recognize any bulge whatsoever in his tights would have been ‘unseemly’.

Remember, this was a society that didn’t quite believe human beings were part of the animal kingdom. Darwin’s ideas were still relatively at that point. For normal folks, any direct reference to our physical selves, particularly with regard to anything sexual, was regarded as base and shameful. Even these days there are folks who shy away from wearing form-fitting clothes. The boxers or briefs question is still asked to this day.

Tights that acrobats wore were considerably more modest than they are today. There was no Spandex. Even so they revealed more than what most folks were comfortable with seeing… or showing. If you were performing in a high wire act or on a trapeze ‘showing’ would be a real consideration, and concern.

I’ll also point out, apart from any matter of opinion, from a literary perspective, just in terms of the way the article is structured, the opening paragraph is the set-up for the events of the narrative. It contains the background information.

From there the narrative develops. The arch of this story summarized is: he went from normal to abnormally large. So large that he begged for amputation.

Yes. It is, in fact, the whole point of the story.

That begging for amputation was born out of his suffering, and the need to sustain his livelihood, surely, but it was likely also born out of shame.

By the time your penis is so big and painful that you arrive in a hospital ‘unseemly’ doesn’t begin to cover it. As embarrassing as it would be in today’s times to go to an ER with a penis emergency, back then the embarrassment and shame would have been completely overwhelming in an extreme nearly totally unimaginable to us.

Okay, enough historical and literary perspective. Carry on. :leftie:

Great post Hap!

:)

I may not have the same degree of the sciences others around here have, but I do know my way around the humanities.

That is a very interesting article.

My college doesn’t seem to have access to the journal of urology for some reason so I wasn’t able to read the whole thing.

According to the abstract, they took tissue out of men undergoing penile operations. They found that the extensibility (stretchiness) solely depended on the tunica.

However, I don’t think that the article is relevant to this specific argument.

I am trying to argue that the tunica is not the limiting factor in terms of growth (as opposed to extensibility)

In other words,

I think that increasing the SM content in your dick sounds relatively easy.

IMO,

(1) Chronic long-term use of ED drugs could do this

(2) VEGF and possibly IGF could do this (assuming you buy real stuff)

The real question is: Will increasing your SM content give you a bigger dick?

If the tunica is the limiting factor then the answer is no.

The study that you posted demonstrates that if you stretch the dick (by adding weights for example) it will keep stretching until the tunica reaches its limit.

This does not necessarily mean that the tunica cannot grow over time to accommodate changes in the size of the “inner dick”

The study that I posted about penile implants suggests that the tunica can grow when exposed to sustained artificial internal pressure. I cannot say for certain whether or not this radical form of tissue expansion would be analogous to simply increasing the SM content in your dick.

That seems to be the general consensus around here as well.

The upward limit, in terms of possible gains, does seem to hinge on the tunica. At least in the opinions of the best analysts of the subject that have participated here.

I don’t follow how you arrive at this.

If there’s scientific evidence for the tunica being the limit, and there’s anecdotal evidence here on Thunder’s Place that also seems to agree with this, then those two arguments tend to support one and other. How best to go about overcoming the tunica is one of the questions around here that folks have been grappling with for some time, therefore.

If it is the limiting factor, why wouldn’t it always be the limiting factor? If it isn’t necessarily the limiting factor, why not and what evidence is there that it isn’t?

In this study they demonstrated that the tunica is the limiting factor in terms of extensibility.

They applied traction to samples of penile tissue. They found that the tunica was no less stretchy than tunica+skin+cavernous tissue.

Imagine attaching two pieces or rubber cord to a lead weight and throwing it off a bridge.
Cord A is made of thick rubber
Cord B is made of thin rubber
The lead weight stretches the cords A+B 30 metres
You disconnect Cord B and try again
The lead weight stretches Cord A 30 metres (same distance)
This means that Cord A is the limiting factor in terms of extensibility and that its analogous to the tunica.

I want to know whether the tunica is the limiting factor in terms of growth (which is conceptually totally different)
I want to know whether increasing the size of the smooth muscle inside my tunica will force it to grow

There is evidence that men with penile implants experience growth of the tunica. (I posted a study a few posts back)

Human tissue is generally capable of expanding if pressure is applied for a sustained period. (not a few seconds or minutes as in the case of this extensibility study). I want to know whether hypertrophy of smooth muscle could generate this pressure and whether the tunica would react by growing to accommodate this change.

It is a dead horse, London. Have you already forgotten what posted here?
marinera - Chemical PE: The Long Awaited Evidence

Healthy men don’t need more SM to have a bigger penis - just enalrge TA and your SM will expand more. Having more SM with the same tunica will not make your penis bigger. Think at the incredible amount of pressure generated while clamping - still you experience an enlargment of 5-10% and we do know that some (if not most) of this expansion is due to fluid build up.

Beside that, NPE will pursue both goals at once: expanding TA and creating more SM. With drugs you want to create a noticeable more quantity of SM (which is dubious per se can be achieved) and you hope this additional SM will expand TA. The outcome will be that the additional SM will be unable to expand because TA is just too strong.

London, did you read Stagestop’s descriptions of his experience of a “sausage effect” while doing growth factors without ED drugs? If not, I recommend checking them out. My personal belief is that it’s more important to achieve smooth muscle growth and/or angiogenesis than it is to expand tunica. I feel the former might induce the latter just by itself (through something like sausage effect), but perhaps more importantly, straining the tunica without “growing the insides” might just end up causing it to get tougher and not retain enlargement if the inside of penis does not grow in sync. I’ve wondered if this “growing the insides” isn’t what jelqing is really doing and why it is so much the backbone of PE for so many.

Marinera, I tried to find it on this page, but what is NPE?

This chemical thing seems very hit or miss and you do know a lot about this PE stuff, why do you think it works for some but not others?

NPE = natural penis enlargement.

It works for some? I can’t think of anybody who gained using chemicals without doing mechanical (jelqing, stretchin etc.) PE. I’m speaking of reliable people, of course, not somebody who is trying to become a guru and, before or after, selling you something, like that Rochelle guy. As shown in this thread, even the more enlightened part of medical community is beginning to revaluate mechanical PE, underlyining how it can be more effective in the long run compared to chemicals.

NPE = natural PE

I agree with those statements. What about the doctors claiming the guy who went from around 6 to 9? I know they are “selling” something but this stuff is all medical grade so it has to come from somewhere. I believe it was a 10 person example posted a little earlier in this thread.