Testing LOT Theory

FWIW, I’ve found the recent discussion in this thread very interesting. Mostly due to the consequences in terms of lig gains potential and LOT change indicated as a result of an inclined (~45 degree) PS compared to a vertically oriented PS. This geometrical constraint makes my experience with below LOT hanging and LOT changes much more understandable. There was a time when Modesto and I squabbled about the applicability of LOT Theory, which, BTW, should never have been elevated beyond LOT Hypothesis IMO. Paraphrasing our discussions Modesto, and please correct me if I mis-state your position, I contended that my experience was consistent with LOT Theory and Modesto asserted that I didn’t see large enough gains or lig changes for my experience to be considered consistent with LOT Theory. I never understood Bigger to have specified any quantified relationship between gains and change in LOT, although I seem to recall Modesto indicating something to that effect. In any case, in a qualitative sense, my experience has been consistent with LOT Theory. I think Modesto agrees with that. However, I now understand where a very reasonable, IMO, argument can be made against lig sourced gains and LOT change. Modesto has already articulated it very succinctly:

The geometry of the PS, shaft, and ‘effective lig’ constrains the amount of penis release by virtue of the fact that as the effective (load bearing) ligs are released to lower PS attachment points, these locations are also more interior attachment points. If a sympathetic (to more body proximal) lig relocation process along the shaft is effected by our below LOT hanging/stretching, which I think Modesto thinks occurs and which seems reasonable to me, then what gains we may realize are due to that lig attachment point relocation, not the one on the PS.

In short, great stuff Modesto. Thanks again for all of your hard work on this subject. I know I’ve learned much due to your efforts.

Can I get my PS rolfed into a more vertical alignment? :)

The criteria is:
a) It has to have been used and approved by me for at least a month
b) It has to have good public reviews, i.e. other people have to claim that it works and it is good

The Captain’s Wench is probably a really good design. I tried to make it over a year ago and failed miserably. Thus, it didn’t fit category A. This is no hard feelings towards the Cap, because my construction abilities weren’t that good at the time. Crash has made a hanger and requested that I added it to my site. I turned him down. This isn’t because I dislike the guy or his hanger. He fits category b (for the most part), but I haven’t tried it, so I surely can’t recommend it. He says he will send me a hanger to try out, and I will. When I try it out, if I deem it useful then I will add it. Any other hanger maker can do the same (e.g. tps and the redi-stretcher).

Well my friend, thats because those are two different websites, ran by two different people. Both of them are not Bib. That was my attempt to make sure the “extra money” gets in the hands that I would prefer it. If you want to know the two website owners, you will have to contact Bib.

It was also my attempt to save the viewer a 20 percent. And to correct myself, one of the sites is being shut down because Bib has recently had a bad dealing with the site owner.

Oh, I completely agree. I’ve done the math, and he probably has made a nice profit. But you also have to take into account is it worth it? I don’t know how much Bib makes on his real job, but if he makes good money (i.e. 100k+ a year), then the hangers surely aren’t worth the money. Or maybe they are. But if he’s in it for the money, he should have stuck to the pills. Those Longitudinal guys are the ones who ran off with millions.

This is good. The reason I ask this is because you seem to be going off in the other direction (in other words, off topic). I don’t mind speaking about my site, nor my relationship with Bib, but it seems a little bit much too me. I’m trying to discuss LOT theory, and PE theory, and your questioning my validity as a speaker. In science, anyone’s opinion should matter — as long as it is thoughtful. Whether it be a pill pusher or a newbie, its the comments/actions that should be judged, not the person saying them.

I have to go now, but I see you have another post. I will be back at it as soon as possible.

- remek

Ah the bibhangers -> bibhanger thing. Useful info to have that (at the time) for anyone buying a Bib.

Remek, You should construct and AFB as well as a wench.

I’ll stop you right there. Brilliant! LOT Theory was never more than a collection of conclusory remarks made without describing or explaining an underlying mechanism. Bib never showed his work. When Bib and I were discussing my findings of this thread, Bib made a big point of saying that the standard of proof that I would have to meet to disprove LOT Theory was very high, since LOT Theory was already well established. That always struck me as strange, considering that he apparently did not have to meet any particular standard of proof to establish his “theory.”

With the default settings of the model, it is true that longer ligs correspond to lower LOTs. But the change is LOT is so very small that I think most guys could never measure it. And it’s not always the case that LOT gets lower when ligs get longer. For example, LOT actually gets higher as ligs get longer, when the length of IP is less than the distance between IR and PS (using my definitions—see my response to Assertion 1 for an explanation of what this means).

The gains we see by moving back the attachment point are the result of rotating the portion of the shaft that was previously closely bound the PS down from it’s initial angled position to a horizontal position. The actual gain measured from the crest of the PS will be PSG*(1-cos(theta)), where PSG is the amount of shaft peeled from the face of the PS and theta is the angle of the shaft before lig stretching.

Note that theta is normally less than 45-degrees, so the gains will be even lower than I previously suggested. If theta = 30 degrees, one stands to gain only 0.133” by peeling back 1” from the PS. Remember that theta is the angle of the shaft as it passes in front of the PS. It is not the angle of the PS.

What this means, I think, is that most “lig gains” people measure are caused by the fact that the lower attachment points along the PS allow the ruler to pushed in farther.

If it’s physically possible, I’m sure you’ll find a way.

I don’t think it’s off topic to explore people’s biases. On the other hand, your one-on-one conversation with SimonClass seems a bit off-topic to me.

I haven’t been keeping up with all of your advice to SimonClass, but I did happen to see this particular nugget, which I found priceless:

So, this is your scientific method? Some anonymous person makes some anecdotal, vague statement, and that makes all the difference to you? Sorry to be mean, but that’s just laughable.

A little clarification please. Theta is the angle of the shaft with respect to the PS right?

Roger that. Makes sense. I now think that there are three means of obtaining ‘gains’ from below LOT hanging (or stretching), 1) from peeling back ligs along the face of the PS (coupled with the peeling of ligs along the shaft), 2) from elongation of tissues within of the shaft, and 3) the ability to place the end of the ruler at a more interior to the body position, i.e. lower down the face of the PS. Regarding the former, well, I still haven’t played around with the Sim to see how well my data conforms to your assertions regarding the expected magnitude of lig gains and associated LOT changes, but intuitively I recognize the validity of your argument. And I’m sure my data would be reasonably, if not very well modeled, by the Sim. Regarding the second means, I now think thats where at least half of what I previously was attributing to lig gains were actually sourced. I WILL play with the Sim to try to determine that fraction, at least as indicated by the model. And I understand the latter means to be questionable as a ‘gain’, as its more a change in datum than a change in dimension, at least with respect to the the pre-lig peeling datum. Please comment Modesto.

:) . I think I better stick to the more pliable tissues.

Sorry mem, I missed this before.

Absolultely. There is also a link to the “How to Construct a BibHanger” guide over here.

I made a Chicken Choker a few years ago. It was a mighty-fine task, but the process was fun. The hanger didn’t work to good for me though. Maybe it was my fault, i.e. I didn’t construct a good hanger, but I could never hold more than 3 pounds on it.

When I get some time, hopefully I can spend some time perfecting a few good home-made hangers. Then I could give some good recommendations on those. Either way, I agree some instructions on building home-made hangers is something that should be added to the site.

- remek

Theta is the angle of the shaft referenced to horizontal (9 o’clock). So, if the shaft naturally forms an angle of 30-degrees above horizontal as it passes under the pubic symphysis, theta will be 30-degrees. This is true even if the front face of the pubic symphysis naturally forms a steeper angle, say, 45-degrees. Since the susp. lig. is generally longer in front than in back, it is generally the case, I think, that theta will be less than the angle of the PS.

This means that one will gain even less than the 0.3” that I indicated above, as a result of stripping the shaft back 1” from the face of the PS. This was a mistake, because it didn’t take into account the way that the shaft hangs down from the PS.

It’s a little discouraging, actually.

You are getting it. This all assumes a BPEL measurement in a 9 o’clock position with the ruler pushed in as far and as low as possible. Using my example above, with a 45-degree angled PS and a 30-degree initially angled shaft, the effect of peeling back the ligs 1” along the face of the PS would yield—

• 0.133” at 9 o’clock due to straightening out the previously angled portion of the shaft
• 0.707” at 9 o’clock due to being able to push in the ruler farther
• Some unknown amount due to actual shaft growth

Thanks Modesto. Regarding “peeling back”, I’ve always thought of, and written of, ligs doing that, as in down the face of the PS or along the shaft, not the shaft itself doing the “peeling back”. I like your description of the shaft “pulling away” from the PS.

I think I’ll have some more questions later.

I am sorry if you feel I am purposely ignoring your statements and questions, because I am not.

Now, I believe you are referring to this statement:

It took me a little bit of dilly-dallying with the LOT simulator, but I believe I understand what you mean.

If I am wrong, correct me, but I you are saying:

Set the tugging angle to 10:30
The lig attachment point to high (or low — doesn’t matter as long as it is consistent)
And the lig length to 15.

Now, change the length to 50, and you will notice no difference (no change in gains, no change in outer penis, etc.) Is this correct?

Modesto,
I am sorry that you feel this way. I am putting in a lot of time here as well. I am not trying to cut any corners, nor am I trying to pass work off onto you.

With that said, if you feel that its my fault that you didn’t notify anyone that you changed the definition of inner and outer, then blame it on me for pointing it out.

I have read this thread three times. Once, a few months after you first posted it — at this point we had a few discussions about this thread (or in particular, the scientific article that you read). A second time in late December of 05’ — when I started my Anatomy PE research. At this point I was very confused, so I took notes throughout the entire thread and the discussions that followed. This took me about two days. I was still confused, so I read more LOT posts, including WestLA’s. I took notes on those too. By January, I wanted more knowledge so I went to Bib. This is where mine and Bib’s primary discussions began. It is also important to note that prior (and during) all of this, I was studying quite a few books on the anatomy (Gray’s, Grant’s, Atlas of the Anatomy, etc).

Looking back at my notes, I noticed that I wrote down the arcuate subpubic ligament (ASL) when reading this thread. I didn’t think much of it at the time because this was the only place I read about it.

I still don’t know much about the ASL. I will have to research it more. But I can assure you that I am putting in the effort — if my 33 pages of LOT theory notes doesn’t ensure you already.

I’ve done my homework. I don’t see where these statement are coming from. I’m asking legit questions in the most respectful manner. I am sorry you don’t see it that way.

With all due respect, you can redefine anything you want in the LOT simulator. But when someone simulates something and make statements of why that certain something is wrong (because the simulator says so), then that someone better make sure the simulator defines everything in accordance with the thing it is disproving. At least, thats how I see it.

Now, as I stated earlier, I don’t think the LOT simulator can prove or disprove LOT theory. There are way too many variables involved. We are talking about a 3-Dimensional anatomical organ (and counter organs around it), being simulated by a 2-Dimensional program. But this isn’t even the kicker. Because if we set our minds to it, I’m sure we could get it done.

The main problem I see is that the variables that we are trying to simulate is all relative. And with this being a program, we can change it to fit our needs/wants.

IMO, the way to disprove/prove LOT is to knock it out of the water with real evidence.

It’s getting late, but I wanted to reply to this before the day was out.

Yes. What do you make of it?

I only blaming you for criticizing my definition and saying it was not legitimate. I didn’t exactly fail to inform anyone. The definitions of IP and OP appear at the very top of the LOT Simulator:

Why did you assume that talking to Bib would get you more knowledge?

Bib shared his explanation of LOT Theory in an email to me, which I summarized here. It made no sense to me then and makes no sense to me now.

The ASL is an obscure feature that most texts don’t mention. I honestly had no idea that you were expending so much effort in studying LOT Theory. Perhaps that explains why you think you know so much about it.

You haven’t done homework on this thread or the LOT Simulator thread. From where I stand, it sounds like you think you know more than anybody else and don’t have to bother studying this thread.

As I have said now many times, this is a valuable point and I agree with you. I plan to go back and annotate my response to Assertion 2 to reflect the legitimate concern that you have raised.

Is this you talking, or Bib? This is exactly what Bib said to me. Actually, Bib said the model was brilliant and a wonderful visual depiction of LOT and LOT Theory—until I told him that the model’s behavior didn’t agree with his theory. Then it became a horribly limited model, which couldn’t possibly represent the reality of a biological organ.

It’s funny how these things work.

I admit that the model is limited. I admit that a 2D model cannot always accurately represent a 3D structure. But the fact is that engineers and scientists use 2D models all the time to represent 3D objects, and they do it with great success.

As I understand it, LOT is not a very difficult concept. In fact, it is a simple geometry problem that can easily be modeled in 2D.

The model is weak in a couple of respects. The first is that the fundiform ligament is not considered. As far as I know, neither Bib nor anybody else considered the effect of this ligament. Second, the suspensory ligament is represented too simply. It needs to be represented with at least 2 strands. I’m working on that fix, but I currently have no plans to include a fundiform lig in the model.

There might be other anatomical structures that come into play, which are not modeled. I don’t think so, but it’s possible.

Another Bib quote. Let me ask you something. Why would you believe this "theory" in the first place? We have no bio-mechanical model that supports LOT Theory, and we have no statistics that show that it’s even a real phenomenon. As Xeno said, calling it a "theory" gives LOT Theory too much credit. It’s just an unproven hypothesis.

It was only Bib’s god-like status around here that allowed this hypothesis to bypass all critical thinking and be fast-tracked past theory and directly to fact. If anyone besides Bib had put forth this idea, it would have been quaintly ignored.

Yet, this "theory" has been inflated to such an extent that you and others believe it can only be disproven with overwhelming evidence. Why is such a large burden required to disprove it, when Bib never met his burden of proving it?

From the purely scientific point of view, I agree that the model is not sufficient to disprove LOT Theory. However, the model does provide a strong indication that the theory may be largely invalid.

I think the model also switches the burden of persuasion back to Bib (or whoever wishes to defend the theory). The burden is on him (or you) to prove that it’s real.

Reading this, I am wondering if you have read anything I have stated here. I know you’ve read it, heck you even replied to it. But you don’t seem to belive (or want to believe) my intentions.

I’ll say it once more: my scientific method involves the truth (i.e. real evidence). I think its very obvious that my evidence wasn’t what you quoted. It was an example of why I think this theory is important to study. And it wasn’t the only quote I have read with similar experiences. While reading the LOT theory, there had been tons of quotes like that one.

Look, you seem to be getting more and more upset these past few posts. This is turning into disrespectful accusations and smacks to the face (such as the one above) that are unncessary. If you continue to do these things, I will leave this thread and seek the truth elsewhere. This may in fact, be what you want — and if it is, just let me know.

Remek,

The reason for my aggressive stance with you is that I feel that you behavior on this thread has been unruly. You responded to a question that SimonClass asked me and seemed to step into this thread as a guest expert who wasn’t invited. You have not answered questions I have asked you and don’t appear to have carefully read this thread or the simulator thread, which you are now criticizing. I have put a great many hours into this thread and the simulator and simply don’t want you running over it like a bull in a china shop.

I welcome focused, intelligent criticism. I have said many times that I am grateful to you for pointing out that my response to Assertion 2 was too narrow. More of that type of input is welcome.

These are my observations and opinions:

In LOT Theory (or LOT hypothesis) PE theory, I don’t think it will work the way the LOT simulator portrays it.

The exit point is a very important factor. If the exit point is moved, the entire lig theory is thrown off. I attached two different pictures below. They are the way I see it happening.

The key points to look for when looking at the pictures are:
The exit point stays the same
The lig length stays the same

I stand corrected.

In my eyes, when dealing with LOT theory there are two important factors.
1) Its validity. It is either right or wrong; truthful or factual; correct or misconstrued.
2) A LOT theory article(s) that I am writing.

Talking to anyone gets you more knowledge. Knowledge is very attainable, it just has to be worked for. Why did you go to Bib? Because its his theory (or hypothesis). And who better to get knowledge about the LOT theory than from the creator? You might say my opinions are biased because I talked to him, but as I stated before I have no bias. I don’t particularly believe/disbelieve in the theory, yet. Either way, when dealing with a mass LOT theory article, I need to make sure my understandings are correct.

Yes, I read that post. It is similar to your statement before (that the angle of the PS is different than Bib describes it). In an essence, I said I agreed with you, and I still do. But there is definitely a lot of variety on the topic. Some depictions show the PS like the face of a clock (as Bib describes it), while others show it as you describe it. I am hoping to further my knowledge on this subject in time.

More subtle low-blows… Perhaps my studying is what lead me to point out the limitations of the simulator. Limitations, which you have yet to defend.

Again, I don’t understand where statements like these come from. I don’t pretend to know anything. I state what I know. Perhaps you know more than I, perhaps you do not. I think this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand. I’m here pointing out reasons of why I think the LOT simulator doesn’t disprove the LOT theory.

Ok. But now where does the LOT theory stand in accordance with the simulator? Is it disproved? Personally, I think not.

Again, it is me, and only me.

As I stated earlier, I request that you stop with these accusations. I am trying to focus on the simulator, and you are constantly throwing red-herring arguments at me.

Sure, scientists simulate 3D objects all the time. But I’m pretty sure they don’t disprove/prove theories(or hypotheses) with the simulator (unless the accusations are fairly obvious and can be proved without the 2D simulator).

And there is always the chance that we could model something wrong.
Why not use real-life tests?
For example,
1) Get a group of men. Instruct these men to start at 12 o’clock and stretch. Where do they feel the stretch? Mark it down. Go to 11 o’clock, and do the same. Do this all the way down to 6 o clock. Now, if LOT theory holds, then at a certain points the stretch should be felt in either a) the ligs or b) the penis/inner penis/ tunica. At what point does the PEer feel the stretch in the ligs? It should be somewhere around their LOT. After they do the stretch-feel test, then instruct them to take their LOT test. Is it accurate?

2)Get a group of men. Find their exit points (to the best of their abilities). Get their LOT tests. Do these two correlate.
3)Get a group of men with very loose/cut ligs (i.e. post-op surgery), and check their LOT. Do their LOTs correlate with their loose/cut ligaments?

These are just some tests off the top of my head, but I am sure there can be more done.

Again, this isn’t a quote from Bib. It is a statement. It is what I believe. I again ask that you stop distracting the main topic with these type of statements.

First, I agree with xeno, it is an unproven hypothesis.
Second, again, I don’t believe/disbelieve in LOT hypothesis. But quite frankly, I don’t think its been given enough observation to prove/disprove it. As you said, there have been no statistics.

I believe it should be tested. Hopefully with these tests evidence can build up. And maybe, just maybe, we can either:
a) Say wow, this LOT theory has absolutely no correlation with lig/inner penis/etc
b) Wow, what an amazing thing, LOT theory has correlation
c) Wtf? LOT theory shows correlation some times, but at other times it does not. In this case, more testing would obviously be required.

Again, I disagree. My resistance is widely open for discussion. If you can come up with any type of defense (against my claims about assertion 1 & 2), then I am opt to change my opinion. But for now it stands. And hopefully, in time, we can all take part in testing this hypothesis.

I looked at your pictures, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to show. Please explain. Especially, please explain how the brown line (apparently part of the shaft) is connected to the more internal portions of the shaft. I’m not getting it.

Thank you.

I’m not sure how your article comes into play, but I am curious to find out.

Everyone has a bias, Remek. You may be biased by the fact that you have already spent a lot of time researching and writing an article. I am biased by a bad experience I had with Bib.

What’s more important than the shape of the PS is the fact that the ligs generally hang down some distance from the PS. This makes the shape of the PS less relevant. It is also highly relevant that the kegeling force comes from behind and below the PS.

What have I not defended?

I think it shows that, at some tugging angles, stretching the ligs allows more IP to be expressed outside the body. At other tugging angles, it doesn’t. I think it also shows that “lig gains” are only apparent at medium to low angles. Also, in view of the ASL, real gains may be very difficult to attain by lig stretching. Most of the gains people measure may be illusory—just the fact that they can push the ruler in farther.

You made a big point of criticising me for not defining IP and OP, when the definitions were clearly laid out at the very top of the LOT Simulator thread. So this has gone both ways.

However, as you can tell by the restraint I am showing with my responses here, I am willing to cut the crap if you are.

Simulators are models that inform people about how things work. In this context, where the penis really does operate primarily in one plane, I think a 2D representation is a good first order approximation of reality. It is true that the crura of the penis extend to the sides to attach to the ischiopubic rami, but the angle is not steep. Although the kegeling force is not directed exactly in the plane of the figure, a component of that force can be projected onto the plane without sacrificing accuracy, I think. The fundiform ligament is a bit of an unknown. However, I think it can be modeled in 2D as well (although I’m not doing it), since it basically performs a function of holding up the penis.

You are certainly correct that the model cannot by itself prove or disprove anything. But I think it can inform people of reality when taken in connection with other information and evidence.

Certainly.

It’s probably close, although I think it might err on the high side, especially if the guys being tested have a long tugback length.

Interesting. I have no idea.

Based on my understanding, people with truly severed ligs should never lose tugback. Actually, they might because other tissues will probably tend to hold up the shaft.

Are you suggesting a survey?

Right. There have actually been some statistics, which Bib reported in his initial thread. But those were based on a very small sample size.

That would be great.

I’ve already responded to assertion 2 (EDIT: I’ve also updated my response at the top of this thread). I’m not sure what the issue is with assertion 1. Could you elaborate?