How important is the theory of Lot?

And respect the big gainers.

Consider this: The greatest gains in penis size a man will ever experience in his life occur during puberty, when the penis is transformed from baby-sized to adult-sized. Now tell me that this surge in growth has anything at all to do with LOT.

Yes but comparing the LOT theory to natural growth is absurd, It’s 2 totally different things isn’t it?

Correct me if I’m wrong but LOT is a theory based on ligament angle locations, and natural growth is fact which doesn’t need to be based on anything but natural growth.

My point is that the penis grows because the penile tissues grow. Regardless of a person’s LOT, a dick gets bigger only when the shaft grows, i.e., accumulates more tissue. Why would the geometrical arrangement of ligaments along the shaft have any value in predicting how much a person can grow from PE, when ultimately it’s the shaft that has to grow before any gains can be achieved?

ModestoMan I think it was you that helped me become skeptical about LOT theory and afterward I looked at a lot of cadavers that was split in half and said hell LOT theory is rubbish. Though you are writing off ligaments like they completely don’t matter it seems like.

I can get an erection and pull up on it and it becomes much smaller and realigns perfect with no skin fold almost like it is supposed to exit from the higher area. Over the years I have noticed my balls when I am about to get off has been pulling up tight right up on my shaft and can be annoying and after all this time I just realized it is because my erection exits so much lower than where it is supposed to. A few times my balls when I got off has pulled up over my shaft and kinda got stuck and scared the hell out of me it is that much lower.

So wouldn’t you say that is from ligaments? It is not actual penis growth but it is a bigger penis do you not count that as true gains?

Just a note I want to add on here, I did all angles at first but after I got my Bib I only did downward angles never anything else until within these last 2 months. Does downward angles really not lengthen the actual tunica at all? I always told myself that it should work the tunica after my ligaments are pulled down far enough. I do girth work now but I am manually doing upward angles is that a good idea from what I have told you?

You can check out my progress thread I keep most everything in there! :)

I’m just getting lazy. Sorry. It’s not that the ligs don’t matter. They do. I think it’s important to stretch the ligs, in moderation, but the reasons to do it is to get them out of the way so you can more easily express your shaft gains.

From your description, it sounds like you’ve changed the geometry of your package. You say your dick is exiting lower. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. For example, the fact that your shaft has grown naturally will tend to pull the skin and fascia around the base of your penis forward. This means your balls will come forward from underneath, and your pubic hair will come forward from above. So it may not be true that your dick is actually exiting lower; rather, it’s possible that stuff that used to be lower has been pulled up higher and more forward.

I think it is a bigger penis (see above). The test is how high your best erection comes up your abdomen. I’ve used my belly button as a reference point over the years. The higher my erection comes relative to my belly button, the more true growth I’ve achieved.

Assuming you’re right, and your gains are really attributed entirely to a lower exit point, then I would only consider that a gain if the extra dick is visible, useful, and doesn’t create any anatomical problems.

I suspect that many times, “lig gains” appear on paper only, and are really only a consequence of the looser ligament providing less resistance to the ruler during BPEL measurements. In cases like that, I wouldn’t consider the gains to be real.

Downward angles can be fine. They can stretch both the tunica and the ligs. However, they tend not to hit the areas of the shaft behind the lig attachment points, so I think they may be less effective than upward angles. A combination of various angles would probably be best.

Almost as fun as AGW. ;)

I agree. It’s fun to be right ;) !

Sure is. It’s a shame the AGW crowd won’t have that pleasure.

Well, it’s fun to think I’m right, anyway. Long live the debate.

Actually, no. Stop debating and do some real science. :)