Guys, what is the point of using BPEL in volume calculations?

Seriously. I’ve noted it on two occasions now: the PE database and the PE spreadsheets that many of our kinder members have put together and are passing around. It just doesn’t make sense to me other than to falsely inflate our egos. The proper length to use in volume calculations should be NBPEL as this is the portion of our cocks we can actually use (not considering those of you who push so hard during sex you compact your fat pads).

That’s a fair point but the main point is figuring out the progress a person is making and that’s best done with BPEL for consistent measurements. Thus, that is what is used for the spreadsheets and PE database.

PS. Who doesn’t push hard during sex? Grinding is a defacto standard for any women isn’t it?

Dude, I’m not arguing against the use of BPEL for measurements. I agree with you on that. BPEL is best for CONSISTENT, and thus, the most ACCURATE of measurements. But using it in volume calculations is not necessary, and is, in fact, false as the meat directly inferior to your pubic bone is likely balls/ballsac (unless you have really low hangers)….

I just saw your sig, so let me rephrase. If you use the volume measurement as a point of comparison between measurements, then fine, might as well use BPEL. But if you don’t, and instead, you’re shooting for some magical volume measurement like 25 CI’s like I am, then understand that you are doing yourself a disservice by shooting for 25 CI BPEL as opposed to 25 CI NPBEL.

Who is measuring BPEL below their penis? Is this not incorrect? I have been measuring from above the penis, on the pubic bone.

They are trying to isolate their penis work from general bodyfat issues. Confusing the two is counterproductive. They may lose or gain fat at some later point, we are only working on penis issues.

No, you’re right. I’m simply saying that if you draw a coronal plane from the pubic bone (where your ruler meets) straight down, all of that isn’t useable cock (during sex).

Noted. Yes it seems that if you’re shooting for 25 CI’s to fill a women then that would be best based off of a NBPEL and a 3 point girth measurement using two truncated cone measurements. Because the spreadsheet/database is using it for comparison purproses of growth, that’s why it’s based off of BPEL as far as I know.

Did I understand you correctly?

As a sidenote to “filling a women” that may be of interest, I think it’s marinera that discussed a compression factor for penises. A soft 25 ci penis ends up with a less filling factor than a hard 25 ci penis.

I suppose that’s true, but still, when I hit 25 ci, I’d want it to be 25 ci of useable cock, not otherwise.

Ahhhh. Good point.

Well some of us don’t really have a fat pad and can use all of it.

My BPEL is definitely usable. When I bottom out, my pubic bone is pressed against her clit and the fat pad is 80%+ as compressed as during a measurement. My fat pad is usually .5”, there’s at least .4” being compressed/divided, leaving ~.1” of actual skin. Pretty insignificant to me.

Also, I’m not sure if this applies to everyone. But, I probably insert more than the BPEL volume because it’s measured from the top; and when I’m in a girl, there’s some extra cock that’s unmeasured on the bottom that’s still going in. Due to the angles. If that makes any sense.

Either way, BPEL is the best way to measure if it’s involving usability or keeping log. NBPEL really only has it’s place in measuring for appearance. But that’s just my opinion, from my experience.

We need a serious effort putting together studies and hard data on the biomechanics of intercourse, compressibility of various tissues, devices to take fraction of a millimeter metrics on the exact dimensions of both male and female counterparts and some hardcore physics simulation software to derive the ultimate predictive formula based on probably several dozen factors that vary from person to person and parter to partner. Even then I don’t think this will be resolved - there will always be loons with a bee in their bonnet about some anal detail, it’s practically a philosophy. What next, quantum uncertainty for a fuzzy length measurement? :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, I believe if you define penetration from the point along the shaft at which the penis enters the bone ring of the pelvis, then even “grinding bone on bone” with a pair of anorexics is still going to result in a measurement perhaps even less than NBPEL.

So, if you are particularly obsessive about it, get out a permanent marker next time you fuck and determine exactly where you should be measuring from for a ‘fair’ volume.

Otherwise, if you are serious about actual PE - go ahead and grab a hacksaw to mark a notch on your pubis in which to dig the ruler in and pull as hard as you can. But then you will probably still hear somebody complain “But you’ve been working out therefore your arms are stronger and you can pull harder and that is what is resulting in the larger measure!”

Rant, rant, rant! :-Y

I really wish I could read your response, but your avatar is demanding, literally DEMANDING, my undivided attention. And this is coming from an ass man.

TSTL,

I think you have this correct. I get tired of the whole NBPEL vs BPEL argument. There is virtually no way to accurately measure the “same” way everytime in an NBPEL measurement. Furthermore, I don’t want some skinny guy with a .25” fat pad telling me that my dick that has a 1.5” fat pad surrounding it is less “effective” during sex.

No one can accurately measure how much a fat pad compresses. My dick, at 7.3 x 5.6, is just as effective in intercourse as the skinny dude with the same dick dimensions who has a .25” fat pad.

Once inside a woman, they do NOT give a shit about how WE think it looks to them, just how we make them FEEL, emotionally AND physically.

Also, I DO believe more than your top measured BPEL goes into a woman, depending on the position.

Check out this thread: “I think we Insert MORE than the Top measured BPEL”