Pulling 'inside' penis out?

I understand your statesment, but, since there isn’t a bone in the penis, then any part of it could be stretched. Or am I wrong? That’s why PE in general works, because the ligs and tissue can be stressed to a point of stretch. By hanging, couldn’t the internal workings be stretched in turn?

Yes but what tissues?

First of all the bulb, the right and the left cura are erectile tissues, they are attatched to the bones, thats why we cant pull the internal penis out.

But these erectile tissues continue inside the penis. The left and the right cura form the two cavernosa bodies and the bulb form the corpus spongiosum. So the two cavernosa bodies begin from the pubic bone and they join at the glands.

During an erection the two cavernosa bodies expand to hold 90% of the blood involved in an erection, increasing both in length and in diameter.

Tunica albuginea is a tough fibrous layer of connective tissue that surrounds the two cavernosa bodies. In other words tunica provide a skeleton for the penis, but at the same time is a limiting factor because prevents the cavernosa to expand more. So the size of your penis is determined by the size of your tunica. Hopefully this connective tissue can be stretched and grows in size allows the cavernosa to expand more. So the growth is tunica growth.

(Re; pulling out the bulb;)

Ummm, yes you can. Flesh stretches. The support structure flesh that holds the bulb can be stretched over time, so the bulb and “inner” penis will hang out further from the body. On some porn stars you can see inner shaft and exposed bulb (if you know the anatomy).

If this makes you feel better or gives you hope about future gains through “inner shaft” exposing, its ok. I dont see an anatomy explanation in your post.

Each Corpora Cavernosa side is tied to the bone and the penis is attatched to the fascia of Colles, it can pulled out. With stretching you stretch the inner penis but you cant pull it out from your body. If this was possible, everyone could expose 2 or 3 inches of inner shaft through surgery.

What you are talking is maybe suspensory ligaments cut, overstretched or hypertrophy ligaments, stretched skin or simply genetics.

So you’re just dismissing what the whole theory behind hanging actually is then? You’re very, very stubborn on this subject despite people on here telling you otherwise and from experience.

How do you explain my base girth getting bigger when I haven’t done much if anything girth related? AND when people go the surgical way even the ones performing the procedure tells their patients that what they are doing when hanging post surgery is pulling the inner penis outside?

“gives me hope about future gains”?? Chuckle. :)

I’m getting a strong feeling you have not yet added much length yourself. The real argument here is about after you have added a couple inches real length, what percentage was from external lengthening and what percentage was from pulling the internal penis out. Have a read on the hanging forum.

Yeah sorry guys. How i dare to question the hanger theory?

And i cant have good gains myself because i dont believe in the hanger’s myth.

I am not being stubborn but i want new guys who read the forum, like me some months ago to learn new things, no obsolete theories.

http://forum.bi bhanger.com/for … er-penis-debate

This is from the hangers forum. Bib himself says that the bulb part cant pulled out.

Unless you have a Counterpoint to the "theory" that we are using the known fact that the way we are using "the "theory" also follows basic and easily observable correlation with base girth gains from a quite large multitude of people spanning many years up till now…I do not see where you are going.

PE is all about trends and patterns. The "theory" you seek to disprove still has correlation that is very strong with repeatable results. All of that represents reasonable data that many people have used to gain base girth. I am not a doctor or urologist but I will say that the observation of the usage of this "theory", however flawed you may find it, has served many people will and thusly is not obsolete.

I also repeat, despite the dozens of threads that reference it, that you haven’t offered a counterpoint to explain what happens in a more complete or "correct" way. So, for a new reader…should he just ignore base girth gain potential that many have used over the years consistently because you say the "theory" is wrong without even an explanation of the gains all of these men have seen over the last 15 years? If the "theory" is obsolete, what do you have to replace it that will replicate its results?

That’s all a new reader will want and is looking for.

Also, additionally, cutting suspensory ligaments offers “between 1-3 inches of growth” as the old surgeon tag lines go. It also wrecks your erection angle and has permanent aesthetic effects that are terrible. Porn star “Mr. 18 inches” was the most famous of that generation of enlargement and looked absolutely abysmal but gained through ligament surgery. As did others of that time. It was a poor choice as it ruined penile function in many cases and isn’t a service people want anymore. The common use of suspensory ligament stretch theory to pull the inner penis out has borne out more times than I can count, with ligament cutting aside.

Also with the stretching of the suspensory ligaments many people do in fact experience some erection angle change usually from upward to more outward or from outward to somewhat downward. And these generally do correlate with length gains they will see. This is also been notated over a long period of time, longer than I have even done PE.

Do not pull your inner penis out, you might need it later.

Where do i say that a new reader should ignore base girth gain potential?

And because hanging works and gives base girth gains we shouldnt know why and how this happens? Or because it works we should ignore the anatomy?

You are very experienced and you know that the penis grows in girth because the tunica is stretched circumferential.

Thats a very good read: The mystery of base girth gains

You imply a new reader should ignore it because the theory in your eyes is obsolete. But, I find that counterintuitive because it still works.

Regarding your link, it is only one person’s point of view. And does not offer any more credible hard evidence that it is more "correct" than the inner penis theory.

Additionally, as I said in a follow up comment, ligament stretch or cutting and the appearance of inner penis and thusly additional length is documented. Both in normal PE as the baseline of the practice and in the surgeries popular 10 years ago.

Heck, there was a guy here who got length by tearing his suspensory ligaments and ended up with a terrible erection angle all on accident.

I am experienced but what I know and what you know are different. We don’t have to agree. But for you to disprove the theory without any real hard evidence…it invites debate and leaves no conclusion.

You have the quote from a single respected member (former or not doesn’t matter, he was great by any stretch, wish I could have met marinera) and other respected members think otherwise (and I don’t include myself in that group, I’m just me) so it leaves an impasse, as "inner penis" concepts are tied to many parts of PE. Without redefining the entire practice of Penis Enlargement I don’t see valid proof that changes the baseline viewpoint nor anything that renders that viewpoint obsolete, since everyone else still finds the theory workable and gains using it.

I laughed. I know I shouldn’t have. But well played, BD.

Needed a better punchline perhaps.

Do not pull your inner penis out, at least not in public.

For the record, the way I understand the anatomy is that the inner penis is very strongly anchored to the pelvic floor muscles at the perineum, and by 2 ligaments joining it to the pubic bone.

The hanging concept of pulling the inner penis out is anatomically referring to stretching from these pubic anchor points - which is primarily external penis.

The internal shaft that is proximal to the pubic ligaments is where the CC’s are anchored in the IC muscles - which are themselves anchored to the pubic ramii bones of the pelvis, right up until the point that they become external. So the inner CC’s aren’t going to budge at all.

The CS is anchored to the BS muscle, which itself is not connected to any bones, only a pelvic tendon.

So in theory, we can gain length in our internal CS, and it is very easy to feel the stretch through the internal CS when doing any upward angle stretching or hanging. In practice though, the CS is connected to those well anchored CC’s - and my understanding is that any inner penis length gains are coming from gains distal to the pubic ligament attachments or at least around that area, i.e. the BTB area.

If you dig your fingers into the sides of your nutsack around the absolute base of the shaft, and press into the pubic bone - external to that point is where almost all PE length gains come from, even hanging gains.

Now that’s pretty far down there, and I guess a lot of people would call it “internal” penis, but I still think of it as external.

I guess I’d say I don’t really think you can gain behind the bottom of the nutsack, all that perineal stuff is very well anchored. But bottom of the nutsack and up can be stretched and squeezed and gained.

Just my opinion man.

Well said. Maybe that’s where some of this argument/confusion comes from?

I would say the “internal penis” is any part that does not stick out of the body when you get an erection. Including the shaft under the nutsack etc, which can also be considered “bulb” if it is larger than the rest of the shaft, which is very normal.

All flesh can be stretched, but not bone. So every part of the penis from the tip to the bone anchors will elongate. And the result is that some of that “inner” penis will become “outer” penis. And on some men some of the bulb part will then be external.