Myths and false ideas in PE

4. Some people claim their BPEL equals BPFSL

Here is a simple mechanical model to consider:
Penis length is limited by the tunica, which surrounds the CC like a cage. The tunica consists of a double web of longitudinal and transversal (circular) fibers. The limiting factor for length is the perimeter of the longitudinal fibers. This is the length of the fibers surrounding the CC taken along the length of the penis.

Considering that we measure BPFSL stretching the penis exactly with the force of the erection, the longitudinal perimeter of the tunica will be the same as when measuring the BPEL. Now, it’s evident that the flaccid state will allow for a larger extension of the tunica when measuring BPFSL (keeping the same perimeter) versus the erect state when measuring BPEL The difference comes from the perimeter wasted along the tip (larger for erect penis). The mathematics forecasts always larger BPFSL than BPEL.
To illustrate the case of the same perimeter with different girths yielding different measured lengths:

<CCCCCCCCCC – flaccid stretched penis (BPFSL – thinner, but longer)
{[[[[[[[[[[ - erect penis (BPEL – thicker, but shorter)

The above should stand for measuring BPFSL pulling with the same force as the erection extends the penis. This force is typically in the 2-2.5 kgf (5-6.5 lbs force) range.
My explanation for BPFSL = BPEL claim is a too weak pulling when measuring BPFSL. Do you have other reasonable explanations?

Are you saying people with BPEL and BPFSL at the same length, are wrong?

I think they just underevaluate their BPFSL (incorrect measuring).

Hopefully someone with the same BPEL/BPFSL can chime in here as I have no personal experience in this regard.

I also hope this will happen and I’m sure they won’t agree on my explanation. I’m waiting for a better one…

A better explanation doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct :)

Are you taking the fact that there are diagonally orientated fibers involved into account???

p.s. I have BPEL and BPFSL of 7.6”

As long as the tunica is made of flexible fibers, even with diagonal reinforcement, it can extend farther when CC is flaccid. If you accept this logic, then what is your explanation? I didn’t find a better one than wrong measuring…

Basically I’m saying that the tunica doesn’t have a fixed shape, but it can vary its size between some limits, It should be the longest when completely flaccid.

Some people hae extreme Glans expansion during an erection.

That could be a valid explanation.

I considered only the model that could be the analogy of a sac of potatoes. Not a fabric sac, but a plastic net. The net is the tunica, the potatoes are the blood in the CC. When the sac is full of potatoes, it has a certain shape and a given length. If it is almost empty, it can be stretched to a larger length than when it was full.

Is the head not inside the tunica?

My BPFSL is just over my BPEL but I think that’s because my head stretches a bit when I pull it to measure.

Nope the head is linked with the CS, having no tunica layer.

Thanks, man-of-10, your observation about glans expansion together with the tunica not covering the glans is a good explanation for BPFSL not exceeding BPEL.

BPFSL is about 90% (or whatever) of BPEL for most of men : it’s just a statistical observation, the penis has a different shape when measuring the BPEL that when measuring BPFSL, for a sets of reasons - just to say one, most of penises when erect tend to have an ovoidal shape :’( )’, where when FS have a cylindric shape : ‘l l’.

This is not a myth or anything, I think near everyone is aware that BPFSL is not the same that BPEL. What confounds people is this other point: how come that, for some men, BPEL > BPFSL? Even accounting the different shape, the glans expansion etc., this is hard to figure, nevertheless it has been reported by a lot of guys.

5. Some people are “more is less”, others are “more is more” type

This classification is based on what people reported as working for them. I think this should not be seen as a characteristic of a person, but of its workout. Changing the workout, one may switch from “more is more” to “more is less”.

We all admit that a good PE workout puts some stress on the dick and some kind of damage is done. This requires time for healing. The more intense the workout is, the more time is needed for healing.
In this view, someone said to be a “more is less” type, actually does an intense workout. He sees gains only if it allows enough time for recovery.
The “more is more” type uses to have a lighter workout, needing less frequent rest. If there is no need for rest, more workout has to yield more gains – elementary logic.

I think the basic issue is that we don’t have an objective comparison of the intensity of PE exercises. We only count the frequency (number of repetitions), but the most important fact, the intensity is left to one’s subjective estimation. This leads to major differences in how different people do their workouts. I can imagine that one who uses to make a jelq with a narrow grip and high erection may stress his dick ten times more than someone else doing a light jelq.

How should we define intensity in a more objective manner? Tough nut, as intensity should be always tailored to the characteristics of a person. Stating that a correct stretching should be done with a force of 2kgf, or a clamp should build up a pressure of 100 milibars would be appropriate for some and may not be for others. We should think about units that are specific to each body, still applicable to everybody. I mean something related to “invariants” in science. An example outside PE: how big should be one’s head? 9” – wrong answer! It should be 1/8 of the body height.