Being new here, I’ve just come across this LOT stuff .. *Whew* - what a blur of ideas, hypotheses and confusion! But there is no Theory here, just ideas.
My immediate impression is that Bib’s LOT Hypothesis is immediately faulted, because as we all should by now realise (if we’ve read the anatomy lessons properly):
(I) the ligaments hold the penile shaft up and against the front and underside of the pubis symphysis, so resist outward and to a lesser extent, downward forces
(Ii) although the tunica essentially binds the corpora cavernosum and corpus spongiosum, it does, as we all know, resist stretching outwards, like the suspensory ligaments.
Also, IMO, (iii) the attachments (called origins) of the perineal/penile muscles within the pelvic frame/floor, will remain tightly bound whatever you do to try and wrench them out of you, so no pulling, weights or
Contraptions used (short of causing serious trauma, which of course we avoid), will produce ‘slackness’ in those muscles’ attachments to the pelvis
To me, these factors imply that there should be no resistance to an inward tug-back and the LOT Hypothesis doesn’t explain how anyone with for example, a LOT 10 or more, and pulling as hard as they can on their ligaments, then gets no tug-back below ‘10 o’clock’. Such a person should be anatomically virginal and undamaged.
Even a LOT 8 or 9 should see no loss of tug-back; if they do, then the LOT Hypothesis should infer that there is actually some stretching within the ligament which is masking that tug-back effect.
So, I say it’s nothing to do with the state/degree of stretch of the ligaments or tunica, but is to do with the strength of the muscles. I guess those with great gains and low LOTs have simply got used to using so much force in the lower angles to overcome the perineal muscles’ action - and so no tug.
I think that earlier posts, by Modesto Man, WestLA and others, are closer to the truth