LOT Theory not right

Perhaps my disbelief in the theory is for this very reason. Bigger did not take into account these things and that’s why you can get the same lot number for different combinations of them.

For example. Someone with an inner penis that points straight forward, who has tight ligs, and who has a weak BC, might be able to see tugback at eight. Mainly this is because his inner penis angle is low and his tugger is still nearly “in line” with his outer penis. Another guy who also has tight ligs, has an inner penis that points up, but who has a strong BC muscle, might also have a LOT of eight. Why? Because his tugger is so strong it can pull things “around the corner” as it were. Neither has “loose” ligs. My problem with the theory is that it was not taken to the needed depth anatomically before it was released on the public.

All well and good, but how is one to measure the length and position of ligaments by this method when one doesn’t know the angle at which the inner penis is positioned or how strong the tugging muscle is? I still see no relationship between the in-and-out movement of your penis and how tight your ligs are.

How many men really have “loose” ligs anyway? Why do we have the suspensory and fundiform ligaments? To hold the penis, while erect, at the proper angle to enter the vagina (suspensory) and to keep it centered during intercourse (fundiform). A better way to tell if your ligs are loose is if you’re having difficulty keeping your penis pointed in the right direction during sex. Loose ligaments are not normal. I sincerely doubt that anyone with a low LOT has authentic loose ligaments. It’s more likely that they have a low angle inner penis, a strong BC muscle, or both.

Ligs & Tunica
Ligaments

That is essentially what I was trying to convey by my example Westla. It was that in fact there are 3 things you need to concern yourself with the ligs (rubberband). Inner penis(hose between faucet and rubberband), and BC muscle(faucet). I was just trying to convey it in a manner, (highly oversimplified) for people to visualize it, since many expressed difficulty in visualizing it. I however did not take in the factor of the strength of the BC muscle into as much consideration as I should have, as I have always had a fairly strong BC muscle, and gratitude goes out to you for pointing that out. As I have spent much time analyzing the science of P.E. And would like to further my knowledge, as I have tried to find the science behind P.E. And as such have taken many mental notes on things regarding P.E. As for everyone being very similar I do however have to disagree as I am 6’4” tall and have an extremely short inseam(30”) compared to almost everyone I know that is above 6’. So with that in mind I would have to believe that there is a great amount of variance with regards to ones inner construction as well as my legs are clearly significantly shorter 2”-6” next to the apparent average that my experience has shown roughly a couple of hundred people in my region. With that in mind I could picture a possible variance of “lose” inner penis, and what I mean by that is easy gains.

As for the others concerned with the exit point of your package I meant vertically not angularly it just has gotten a little lower to the ground, hardly noticeable if any. The thing that I guess surprises me the most about this discussion is how many people jump into things they don’t even take the time to think about or read about. As there is a vast resource in thunder’s place to read and comprehend before you go about and try to deform one of your bodies most important aspects, your reproductive system. With that in mind I would like to thank everyone that cares about P.E. And puts much effort behind discussing at as there are many even in this thread. Now back to yanking on Willie.

This is why I suggested that Bigger must not have been concerned with the angle of the internal penis when describing LOT Theory: The objective of the theory is to determine this. You do not use the angle of the internal penis to determine LOT - you use LOT to determine the angle of the internal penis.
The higher the angle, the more internal penis there is. The more internal penis there is, the more someone should concentrate on stretching their ligaments.

As for the strength of the BC muscle acting as a deceptive force in determining LOT - To be completely frank, I have a hard time believing that these tough, fibrous tissues we call ligaments - tissue that can withstand a tremendous amount of tension, as anyone who has done any amount of hanging can attest - would cave in the face of the relatively minor force applied via the BC muscle.
Just MHO.

The higher the angle, the more internal penis there is.

Is that true? For everyone?

The more internal penis there is, the more someone should concentrate on stretching their ligaments.

Why can’t everyone concentrate on their ligaments?

[QUOTE=mgus]
#11

Yeah, I never bought into the E=mc2 either, too scientific and dramatized;)

[QUOTE]

:rolleyes: E=mc2 has so much to do with PE :rolleyes:

I’m going to try to create a graphical computer simulation of LOT. I think I can probably do it with Javascript and just upload it as an html file. It could take me a few days, but it sounds like a fun project (I’m trying to bone up on my Java programming).

The page would allow one to interactively change the angle of pulling, as well as play with the different dimensions (lig length, internal penis, external penis, and BC tugback range, as well as the relative positions of the pelvic bone and pubic bone).

The simulation might help us to better see what’s going on.

MM, upload an html file? Think about that for a minute.

OK, times up. When you get it finished you will have to have someone upload it for you. Check your PMs please.

I don’t know. But I imagine not. I’m only relating that in the context of what the LOT Theory seeks to convey.

You’ve got my vote West. All I have ever really concentrated on for length gains are my ligs, and as I said before I think of all the approaches available it’s the most prudent.

But I also understand why many guys attack length at higher angles. There is a fair percentage of people who get nothing from low angle work, and if I recall correctly this fact - but not this fact alone - was one of Bigger’s motivations for pursuing his LOT Theory.

Vector math will show why LOT is experienced, and it has nothing to do with ligs. So I agree, stretch at 6 o’clock and 12 o’clock, and everywhere in between, because LOT doesn’t mean anything.

The simulation is working. Thanks to ThunderSS, it is now up and running on this site. You can find it here.

Right on MM, looks interesting.