Is It All Just a stretched Suspensory Ligament?

I understand PE is all an experiment done by average Joes like myself. If it was all hard science there wouldn’t be a need for a forum like this to share ideas and opinions of what works and what doesnt.

I came across a few sources that seemed as good as any, saying penile lengthening is basically just stretching the suspensory ligament at the base of the penis. This lengthening will work but your erection will aim lower due to a lack of support from a loosened suspensory ligament.

I’ve noticed a little of this myself but I could be wrong.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and experiences. Thanks!

According to my own experience, the erection angle remains the same for me, using the extender for 5 - 6hs/day, 5 days a week for around 7 months now. I may even say erections are even harder. I use half the time pointing upwards and half of the time pointing downwards.

Best of luck.

For those of us who have been doing this for years, is not just ligaments. Be careful with science. Science resembles more a religion/cult than anything else. If science hasn’t been studied penile enlargement by exercise, under their eyes “it doesnt exist”, is “conspiracy therapy” And unfortunately people see scientists and doctors like some sort of Demi Gods that whatever they say, it has to be true and trusted. Not the case.

Tesla was a real scientist. Einstein was a real scientist. Micchio Kaku is a modern real scientists. Guys like DeGrasse Tyson are parrots with an agenda.

Do your own science. What about that. There is research, studies. Read them. Apply.

Remember in order to develop mainstream science it takes money. That money comes from government grants and private corporations. Do you know how much profit is in exercising pulling your dick? ZERO. Do you know how much money will be donated to study this game and develop it into science? ZERO.

Hey Mik3, good to know thanks! That sounds like a solid routine. How much have you gained so far extending ?

Right now not sure, measured half month ago, it was 19.1cm BPFSL (started around 16.5cm) and around 17.7cm BPEL (started around 17cm), so around 1 inch or 2.6cm BPFSL and .7 to .5cm BPEL. BPFSL grows faster and I’m waiting for my BPEL to catch up with my BPFSL, it’s really slow, so be patient and constant.

Best of luck.

(igigi:) “Science resembles more a religion/cult than anything else.”

Wow. That’s the opposite of the truth. Try submitting your next research study containing statistically thorough data and interpretations to the double blind peer-review process conducted by your leading science publication. You should see how free from bias that process is after that experience. Your report will be torn to bits by multiple scholars who do not even know you. If its any good it will still be corrected for accuracy, and if its not then forget it you will not get it published. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove personal opinion and bias from the determination of provable scientific fact. If you think science is a political farce like politics is, then you have some serious study to do. Science is designed to be repeatable, rigorous, beyond personal opinion and unaffected by culture, religion, politics, or anything else. There have been fake studies before, but they are by far the minority of what goes in the science community.

Science is still paradigmatic.

Look at all the bunk “nutrition science” from Harvard with weak evidence that’s in peer reviewed journals because it fits the fashion of the moment (which was set by marketing companies). I’m not saying that’s got as far as physics yet but give it time.

Also studies are retracted all the time that have already appeared in peer reviewed journals.

Beyond that, research is regularly misinterpreted by english graduates in the press to promote whatever agenda they are pushing.

Retractions occur for a very small percentage of overall publications ( fewer than 1 in 1,000 articles). Link below. That’s lemme see, a 0.1% retraction rate. And one could argue such a small number shows the system works, not that it fails. A standard way of waging nonsense argumentation is to take some trivial, if correct amount like this, and draw attention away from the real numbers by saying broadly "oh this shows there is a fault". Yeah we see that, but how much of a fault? Not much in this case. Anyone being fair would agree there is fraud in peer-reviewed science, ok, but the question is how much? Not much is the answer. Politics on the other hand, wow. Lots of it.

https://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/ … emic_publishing

Is nutrition science a thing?

What I don’t like is how something is “recommended” as the new healthy option then later reversed. Is any of this subject to the scientific method or are nutritionist just lone wolves espousing ideas.

Examples: Back in the 90’s bodybuilders were all about carbing up. Fast-forward to today and many from that period struggle with diabetes, obesity, and heart issues. More recently, soy milk was all the rave in the mid 2000’s (2005-2009). Then it became a no because of it’s impact on estrogen levels. Was any of this subject to the scientific method or no?

I’ve long (six months ago) come to understand that the issue with PE is it that success may not be repeatable. So no doctor is going to put, at a very minimum, his/her reputation on the line for it.

Yes there is a lot of back and forth about nutrition and health because it is possible to argue with pretty weak evidence that something is either bad or good for you. Doctors do it all the time. I recall a few years ago some obscure study showed a link between cardiac health and wine drinking. Oh boy, they had fun abusing that one. It was a weak link even by the original study itself. Just because some doctor says something might be true does not make it true. Doctors opinions are not peer reviewed science articles. By the same token, just because some study seems to show something, that does not make it 100% true. If there are numerous studies showing the same thing you may have something. But without peer reviewed science you almost definitely do not have anything and the system works.

A bunch of great points have been brought up here.

The scientific method is one of the most important developments in all of human history. I can think of very few things that have been as instrumental in the advancement of mankind.

That said, it’s still not perfect. Research, particularly the type that holds up to rigorous scrutiny, is very expensive. That money comes with strings. In order for small studies to get the funding they need to become large studies, the results oftentimes need to reflect a predetermined outcome that benefits the grant writer, or be inherently profitable. History is full of examples of the scientific community at Large ostracizing someone for an unpopular idea that later turned out to be accurate.

That’s all a bit off topic though. To the OP’s question, there hasn’t been a great deal of scientific study for most PE and will probably not be for the foreseeable future because it is so difficult to monetize. There have been some that show positive and reliable results with extenders. If it was only the stretching of the suspensory ligament, anyone claiming girth increases would have to be lying which I don’t accept. I’ve seen increases in girth myself which means there are changes happening in the penile tissues themselves.

I could be wrong but I think any money for studies should go to silly things like curing cancer but hey that’s just my opinion.

I think the OP was referring to the video by the ex-TS member where he said no girth gains are permanent. That’s a bit of a different spin. He argues that there are acute gains and they are potentially long-term, but not permanent is what he says. If you stop all forms of PE for three years you lose it. I’m too much of a newbie to know. PE is often compared to bodybuilding, and retired bodybuilders usually keep some muscle mass.

Regarding studies, I don’t think that PE lends itself well to studies do to the variation in methodology and outcomes. If a group of participants could use the same routine, with the exact same percentage of strain, stretch, tension, weight, or whatever; for the same amount of time then maybe you will be on to something. I think even physiological make-up would need to be the same.

Has no one seen Kyrpa’s thread yet?!

😁

@shadow I have. I think we kinda got caught up in debunking the idea that girth gains are not real and defending PE at the same time.