Condom pumping

Yeah, your dick doesn’t get that spongy, bloated feel to it. You can tell the engorgement is from within rather than just under the skin. The post plumpness is not quite as impressive, but just feels better to me, like some long term good is being done rather than just cosmetics.

Big Girtha,
I tried the bicycle tube thing, and found that the extreme tightness prevented expansion for me. I did allow length expansion, but I almost got a fluid blister on the head of the penis. I was using crazy high vacuum (9-10 in hg). Tell me about the cable clamping between sets. I have also been doing that, but using 5 min in tube, 5 min cable clamps. Have you been getting good expansion from the clamps?
How frequently do you do your routine?

Thanks,
Sparkyx

Guys:

It’s terrific that we are all learning new things/techniques. I have a suggestion, though, that will also help us all.

Could we please keep condom pumping in its own arena and thread and other topics like clamping in their own threads? Different methods and not relating much, if at all, to each other. That way we can easier sort out later what specifically works for most and what does not.

Also, guys doing searches for “condom pumping” or “clamping” do not have to read extraneous things.

Yes, sorry to be getting off track. However, this is something that I noticed in practicing the two. In clamping, it put pressure on the lateral sides of the penis, causing decreased outflow of blood while allowing inflow. This is what causes the hyperinflation…if you get it right! I find, if I clamp too tight, it shuts off both the inflow and outflow, and you really don’t get that hyperinflation.

This reason of bringing this up here is that I have been finding something similar in pumping. If you use too much vacuum, doesn’t it also make sense that the expansion at the base of the penis might also cause compression of the inflow of blood? If blood can’t flow through the arteries, then you would get increased amount of inter-cellular fluid (lymph). What I’ve been finding is that if I get a good hard erection in the tube ( increased internal pressure) I will get greater expansion with less vacuum (vacuum causes relative increased internal pressure, though diminished external pressure). However, if I use too much vacuum, it greatly decreases my ability to get a good hard erection. I now believe one of the causes of this is that I may be constricting the arterial inflow.

So once again, I believe that the reason jelqing works is that you increase the internal pressures enough to expand the inner chambers. Pumping will also do that, but you ride the fine line of generating enough pressure to expand the chambers, but that force is close to the levels that also pull lymph out of its normal channels and causes the unwanted swelling. By using external counter force (condom), it allows you to shift the forces needed more toward expansion and away from lymph migration. Getting a good hard erection also gives increased internal pressure while not increasing unwanted fluid shifting. It also allows you to get more expansion with less vacuum, which is beneficial.
In conclusion, I believe using a condom, or balloon or similar external constriction device, combined with using enough vacuum where you can still maintain a hard erection may be the ticket to optimum expansion with minimum negative effects.

Avocet, you are the guy with the most “time in tube” here, what are your thoughts on this?
Sparkyx

I’ve given this a lot of thought and experimentation. I believe in theory, the concept of condom pumping could very well change the course of pumping, as we know it, there just seems to be a few inconveniences to be worked out. For some of the older guys, or those who have ED, getting an erection and keeping it long enough to don a love-glove and get into the tube are a challenge, not to mention the mess from the lube makes them difficult to remove and put back on during the breaks in between sets when massaging away lymph is so important. Another concern is the expense of condoms, especially when you start using several during a session when they break or doubling them for strength or using the thicker ones, (skin membrane type) they become even more costly, due to the trouble that comes about from the sheer nature of the material they are made from. For this reason I thought the inner tube could be easily washed and used over. When something is easy and inexpensive, we tend to utilize it more.

However, since my last post to this thread, I’ve had more time to experiment with the bicycle tube method, and (SparkyX) you are right, the inner tube does allow some pretty extreme pressures to be used with absolutely no ill effects, but I now feel the inner-tube material is a little too thick to get a good engorgement, however the principal here is very sound and I feel we are on the right track. There must be a material out there that is thicker than condoms yet thinner than inner tube that can be stretched easily over the mouth of the cylinder, then removed and washed without the constant buying of condoms. TheraBand would be great, if it came in the cylindrical shape of a condom or bicycle tube, but the flat sheets are not as convenient to use, and I see no practical way to make the sheet into a cone without creating a seam, which can be painful under pressure. However if there was a way to buy or make TheraBand into a cylindrical, or conical shape I think its uses for all aspects of PE would be made much simpler. Being able to stretch a cone of TheraBand over the mouth of a cylinder or even just being able to slip it on like a condom would be remarkable even for hanging.

(SparkyX) I don’t think your last post here was off topic, as perhaps mine was and I apologize to the group for hi-jacking the thread, although tonight I check and see the hi-jacking didn’t lead anywhere other than possibly killing the thread. So perhaps this post will resurrect it. As well, I feel all the contributions you’ve (SparkyX) made to this thread have been very enlightening, and in answer to your question, yes I have been making some remarkable progress in girth gains with a minimum of fluid build up with the off topic method we both mentioned. However, I’m sure Avocet is right, this thread is not the place to discuss techniques other than condom pumping, but neither is a PM. As Thunder suggested to me once, if we all discuss new methods in P.M.s only two people benefit, as where in the public forums thousands can be led astray. So, with that in mind, you or anyone else who might be interested in being led astray from condom pumping meet me here

Advanced PE

and we’ll talk about that off topic technique mentioned heretofore.

I agree with that.

The condom (if a tight one) provides a total glans/shaft wrap and this discourges lymph fluid buildup. I’ve never had any kind of doughnut or tissue bulge when condom pumping, even going a little higher than my normal limit on HGs. What’s interesting to me is that after the session and the condom is off, the compensatory arterial blood flow in seems to be greater than without a condom and that this engorgement lasts longer than with a non-condom pump.

Is condom pumping essentially a way of getting the perfect fit cylinder? I mean if we had cylinders that went up in say 0.1” circumference then that would allow us to get the same results, no?

If that’s the case then perhaps we don’t need an elastic material at all. Even a rigid soft cloth could be sewn in seconds to provide an open ended cylinder (not that I have a sewing machine :)

Thread highjacking is a tough issue and I don’t want to beat any of you up too much about it. There are very appropriate times to talk about a periferal subject in a thread that does not address that. But in general, to help guys in the future to find info. specific to "condom pumping," let’s try to stay at least to constrictive devices like condoms or bike tubing, or whatever, in this interesting thread and the dynamics of what is happening when we use these things.

Shiver: I think it’s about getting as complete as possible inward compression around the total shaft and glans while the vacuum is, at the same time, doing its work to pull all the tissue outward in all directions. If you’ve tried it with a condom, you will see that even with a tight condom on you still get very good shaft expansion upward and girthwise.

I’ve tried condom pumping and got good results so long as I stayed with 5Hg and below. This is less than what I like to use, but in order to retain the effect of condom pumping I too am looking for something stronger than condoms.

The way I imagine it, if the restriction device was very slightly above the tunica normal maximal size yet within the extensible range, then a rigid container would make sure than no edema would occur (unless I’m missing something).

Off topic:
In the Papaya thread I mentioned that I’ve started using bromelain capsules, which helps alleviate edema fantastically (amongst other observations). My main reason for avoiding edema is that I believe the inflammation could lead to increased fibrosis, which incidentally I also believe is a key component in being a shower more than a grower.

Hi everyone,

I’ve read through this entire thread. I have seen a definite progression toward an understanding of what’s happening during condom pumping and why it works.

I felt that a picture would really help me to understand what’s going on, so I decided to make one. Check it out.

I have a small amount of technical experience with pneumatic and hydraulic systems. I’m by no means an expert—my specialty is in electronics, not mechanics. But a couple of things jump out at me when I look at this picture. This is not crystal clear to me, so please take the following as simply an opening volley in an attempt to understand this.

First, the condom is open to the vacuum. That tells me that the pressure inside the condom (between the condom and the skin) is the same as the pressure in the empty part of the tube. If it weren’t, air would be sucked in or drawn out of the condom to approximately equalize the pressure.

Second, although the condom is squeezing the penis, it does not actually reduce the pressure applied by the vacuum. This is a little controversial, so please check my on this. I figure that condoms don’t really apply pressure, but rather force, and the force is really directed entirely inwardly, toward the center of the penis. What I’m thinking is that the condom does not squeeze the penis lengthwise, like a positively applied pressure would. The condom is neutral along the length axis; it neither pushes nor pulls.

So, although the condom resists the vacuum, it only does this along one axis. The upshot of all this is that I think the skin under the condom is actually still subjected to the full pressure of the vacuum; it is just slightly constrained from expanding in one direction only.

Let me try an example. Inflate a balloon. Now squeeze the sides. What happens? It expands lengthwise. The pressure inside the balloon doesn’t drop; in fact it increases. The same may be happening with condom pumping.

The penis may get fatter with the condom than without because it is actually subjected to higher pressure. The condom increases the pressure inside the penis.

The condom also seems to provide the benefit of cutting off the path for tissue fluid and providing compression between the skin and the underlying tissues (to prevent doughnut).

Please comment. I am not convinced of this, but at least it gives us something to focus on.

Later.

Here’s a simplification of the above:

Condom pumping applies inward compression to the sides of the penis, essentially performing a mild squeeze. The squeeze increases the pressure inside the penis, increasing the effectiveness of pumping.

This applies equally well to pumping with an “inner-tube.” It’s the same effect, only the compression is stronger with the inner-tube.

The penis gets fatter after pumping with a condom that it does without because it has been subjected to higher pressure than usual.

As someone pointed out earlier, the plumper post pumped penis :) could also result from the condom preventing lymph from entering the shaft, thus leaving more room for the CCs to expand. But this implies that the skin itself or some other enclosure maxes out under the vacuum and allows no further CC expansion. Is this the case?

Sorry that this is somewhat redundant with my previous post. I figure if I repeat it enough times, it might actually start to make sense.

My head hurts! I’ve been doing too much reading at pubmed today, and I think if I try to cram in one more piece of information then some other information might fall out (forgetting how to drive?).

The model I was working on was simply a compression bandage for the penis, with the CC pressure on one side of the skin and the condom or similar on the other side. I’m not sure that the condom would increase the pressure inside the penis since the blood has an exit path. Maybe it’s a little late and I should re-read your theory tomorrow :)

Shiver,

Good point about the exit path. But aren’t there valves or something that keep the blood in?

Since no one except Shiver has responded, it appears I have successfully baffled you all with bullshit.

I just re-read my initial post, and now I think it may be wrong on one point.

I said the pressure inside the condom is the same as outside. On second thought, this is not necessarily true. If the condom forms a good seal with the base of the penis, the air inside the condom may well have a different pressure. Still, it doesn’t affect the main conclusion—that wearing a condom is like doing a squeeze while pumping.

So, all the rambling above boils down to this. The condom squeezes. This actually helps because it increases the pressure inside the penis. This increases the effect of the vacuum because the pressure difference (all that really matters) between the inside and outside of the penis is increased.

I and others had earlier made the mistake of thinking that the pressure induced by the condom actually counteracted the vacuum. Not so. The pressure reinforces the vacuum, i.e., makes it more intense.

There. I’m glad we had that discussion :) .