You’re welcome for the thoughtful reply mravg ;) . I’ve thought about how I replied to your question and the fact of the matter is that I equivocated a bit in my response. Because I’m loathe to initiate conflict or controversy. And I abhor the practice of presenting something as factual or statistically robust without sufficient basis for such an assertion. Compound that with my belief that very few members will take the appropriate action as indicated by my honest assessment of the cause and effect relationship between SKF and PE, and I’m even less inclined to be forthcoming with it. The fact is, as far as I can tell, a lot, maybe most, “PEers” appear to think PE is an excuse for and/or a means to jack-off. And frankly, I’m getting tired of leading you horses to water only to watch most of you go thirsty.
But I’m going to show you all another section of Big Dick Creek anyway.
I think there are three aspects of SKF that positively affect PE gains. But one is foremost among them, I think. I’ve alluded to it already, but I’ll now be more clear: I think the lower rate of ejaculation attendant with SKF supports a more neuro-biochemically nutritional environment for penile tissue growth under the effects of applied deviatoric stress (IOW PE) compared to the neuro-biochemical environment during higher ejaculation rate periods. I don’t know the mechanism, but I think its prolactin related, as in refractory period systematics, during which penis retraction is characteristic. I realize that refractory period systematics are considered to be effective over only relatively short time frames, measured in minutes to maybe 10s of minutes, but I suspect that the post-ejaculation neuro-biochemical recovery (refractory) period for something as fundamental to a male biologic system as the mechanism for procreation, i.e. ejaculation, is more preferentially conditioned into our systems’ recovery capabilities, IOW, its “short tracked”, relative to the neuro- biochemical recovery period for something that exists at the complete opposite end of the biological imperative spectrum, i.e. gonad enlarging.
IOW, as far as our biological systems are concerned, making your 6.5” x 5” into a 7.5” x 5.5” is a really low priority compared to launching sperm. Indeed, as based on my experience, I conclude that gonad enlarging is something that our bodies neuro-biochemically counteract during the ambient neuro-biochemical conditions subsequent to ejaculation…which is what it REALLY cares about. So, as indicated by my experiments, with respect to PE activities, the ambient neuro-biochemical condition of retraction is measured in periods of days, 10s of days even, not minutes, subsequent to relatively high ejaculation rate periods. It stands to reason that it would take the opposite of this neuro-biochemical condition (high prolactin and who knows what else) that defines the physiological response of penis retraction, in order to best facilitate the opposite response, penis enlargement.
Think about it. If jacking off was beneficial for PE gains, don’t you think there’d be shit loads of guys with monster dicks walking around? I know that when I was a maniacal jack-off artist, my dick was much smaller than my pre-PE size. I also know that when I haven’t ejaculated for some extended period of time, my erections are huge, and my penis is straining, as if it has a mind of its own, looking for pussy! Emphasis on straining. As in strain. As in elongation. This is when we want to do PE. Smart PE. We want to take advantage of the neuro-biochemical condition that is promoting strain in our penile tissues, and induce a deviatoric stress in the direction that we want elongation. As long as we don’t apply it so aggressively that we trigger a physiological retraction response, we will gain.
To summarize: what we want to do is cultivate the neuro-biochemical conditions where our penises are straining to grow. Which are the conditions at the opposite end of the ejaculation frequency spectrum of most people, including, as far as I can tell, most PEers, in fact, as far as I can tell, in particular, most PEers. Ironic isn’t it.
So here’s my new hypothesis: SKF practice, and the seminal retention aspect of it in particular, increases PE gains within individual training cycles by facilitating a more neuro-biochemically conducive environment for both training gains (elongation parallel to the applied deviatoric stress) and recovery to occur, thereby allowing for increased training work per cycle before the inevitable switch from a positive feedback (gains) system to negative feedback (conditioning) system sets in.
Funny, sounds like how the effects of steroids on muscle tissue are described doesn’t it? Interesting.
There are two other, albeit closely related, PE beneficial aspects of SKF practice. But I’m tired of writing now.
Drink up (IOW, back-off on the jack-off)…if you’ve got any sense.