Penis/body connection

This is along the same line as the LOT theory of Bib. It has always been my contention that men whose penis (ligs) connects lower on the pubic bone hang lower and have longer penises. Mine connects high on my pubic bone and my flaccid does not hang low and my erecion is around 10 o’clock, almost straight up.

I have noticed in porn, the guys with huge flaccid hangs have penises that connect seemingly very low on the their body. Their erections are very low angle as well, many with a downward curve.

Any thoughts? Am I imagining this?

Lots of things could account for differences like this. Lig attachment (high or low) is one, but there’s also pubic bone angle and shape, as well as lig length.

Mine stands straight up and it’s a huge problem.

Well, for one thing, if the penis attaches low, it’s going to look longer because it seems more separated from the body, compared to the same length hanging from the front of the body.

Mine hung pretty low and had a downward curve before I started PE. It still is, by the way. Not sure when it started being that way, or whether it had been this way all along.

When I was younger, I wore briefs with my tool pointing downwards. So, I was thinking this might be the reason for my penis being the way it is. Maybe it’s because my tool is pointed downwards constantly, when I have erections, my briefs prevent it from going up and at the same time lengthens the lig?

Mine points down, even with a 100% erection it points down. But I like it that way, it says it means business.

mgus,

Has there ever been a survey or poll to determine if lower hanging penises are longer?

On another note, I cannot remember seeing a very short penis (micropenis) with a low body attachment. I also don’t remember seeing a very long penis with a real high body attachment. I also wonder if body attachment effects erection angle.

Well, how do you define a “lower hanging penis”? X inches below your belly button, Y% of your body length above your knees? How do you measure that? This seems to me to be a very subjective observation.

I don’t think this will lead you very far. And even if it turned out that there was a correlation, then what do you do with that?

Personally I think LOT is one of those things that looks good on the surface, and when you look at details it doesn’t describe all cases, only a few - which is why it was mistaken for a valid theory. The junkyard of scientific history is full of theories, formulas etc that are valid in a certain interval, but don’t explain what is really going on.

I’ve been wondering a lot about this myself. Anyone interested in revisiting this topic?