Volume vs Area

Wouldnt it make more sense to measure growth in terms of area rather then volume? Sure, results look even more impressive when using volume as an indicatior of growth, but what your giving to the girls is, well, your length and your girth, your area.

Actually I think volume is probably a better measurement since it is 3 dimensional and area is only 2 dimensional.

Volume indicates the total amount of displacement inside .

Otherwise I’d just use length or girth separately IMO.

I agree, volume is what counts…. it relates to the ability to displace. See my thread ‘This is interesting - where do you stand?’ and feel free to make comments on my logic of what is ‘the same’ and what isn’t.

Yeah thats true, forgot about volume being 2-d. So I guess hung guys really are two times, or even three times larger then the average guy :)

Well put.

Yeah…

5.5 x 4.75 = 9.88 cubic inches

8.2 x 6.2 = 25.08 cubic inches

Although the later is only about 50% longer, he’s nearly TRIPLE the size; translation = the gal will sure as hell notice the difference.

Ehm, generally it shouldn’t matter. I mean, the mantel area grows exponentially with the volume, and essentially the area you get when you calculate, is the area that touches the inside of the woman. I was good at math and physics in whatever in school, but I’ve become really stupid since I graduated, so feel free to correct me.

Well, surface area grows linearly with either girth or length; volume grows linearly with length, but exponentially with girth.

Krowax, you are correct to the extent that generally girth and length come togetheter, thus creating an ‘exponential’ effect on the surface area. When these two components grow together, the effect on volume is out of this world. ;)

I don’t understand mathematical language very good in english, but I have the diagrams in my head, not the names hehe :p . But I kind of get you.

The fact is that length & girth are three dimensional for our purposes, considering that most dicks are sort of round. Few dicks are wide and flat like beaver tails, right? Volume, though, is non dimensional.

What “dimension” is a measure of displacement? Can you picture 20 cubic inches in your head? If I tell a chick that I’m gonna give her my 20 cubes, does she know if she’s going to get two feet of dick that’s 3” in girth or a 4” long dick that’s 12” in girth? No, but she just may care to.

Length and girth do a very accurate in measurements as well as in giving a visual description of the unit under discussion.

While it’s true that most people don’t have a clue about what is 22.6 cu in, etc., that still doesn’t justify dismissing volume as a measuring tool - especially for guys who PE. Volume puts things into perspective for us, illustrating just how “big” measurements are.

In the case of your examples, no girl could get “two feet of dick” - maybe 8 or 9 inches (at 3” girth, 8.5” length would be a measly 6.09 cu in - a pencil dick, almost). And the 4” long dick that’s 12” in girth would fit in probably no girl (by the way, that would be almost 46 cu in).

I’m sorry, I didn’t really understand the point of the post.

Wadzilla,

My point is… that I think I misread the first post. And now that I read through this thread I still don’t understand it. :)