Bad news for some big boys and caution for PE people: hard cock most important

B_johnschlong

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
653
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Gender
Male
I just watched a sexologist and urologist famous over here in Europe, who's known for his best-sellers about the penis (his name is professor Bo Coolsaet, he wrote, amongst other books "Het penseel der liefde" (Dutch) - Le Pinceau de L'Amour (French) - Der Pinsel der Liebe (German) - not sure of an English translation).

So he was on this talk show about sex. And they asked him the usual questions about what women want when it comes to a penis. Very interesting stuff.

Then they showed a street interview in which they asked women: "do you prefer a medium-sized but rock-hard penis, or a large penis that doesn't get that much erect". All of them preferred the hard one.

Coolsaet then commented with very interesting remarks:

-yes, this has been polled often, and it's a recurring finding, hardness is the more important of the factors

-then he made a serious warning: his department always advises against all forms of penis enlargement, because they are very often damaging to precisely this hardness.

In ranking order of danger:
-penis enlargement surgery can seriously affect erectile strength; even viagra will not help because critical tissue is weakened
-weights and pumps can do equally serious damage, because they loosen the tendons (not sure if this is the correct English word) with tiny 'fissures' that can leave irreparable damage
-he even mentioned "jelqing": "you know there is this trend of jelqing the penis with lubricant; it's an internet thing", etc... and then something of the kind of: "if this is not combined with kegels, I would never advise this as a technique because there's no scientific basis to say how much jelqing is ok, and how much is not; irreparable damage can be done".

-then a lot of blabla about being happy with what you got.

-finally, he said there are two simple natural ways to keep in shape:
1. doing kegel exercises
2. eating healthy food, losing weight and doing regular exercises

-and two simple things to avoid:
1. smoking is catastrophic for erections, but we already knew this. He is now busy with the government to create ads that play on this knowledge; to quit smoking prevents erectile dysfunctions. This message has been shown to be very effective in male test populations, he said.
2. ejaculating when the penis is not erect should be avoided; if you are capable of ejaculating without a full erection, you are showing the first signs of possible erectile dysfunctions that could deteriorate; in that case, you should see a doctor.

His main conclusion: women find an erect and well functioning penis just as important as men; erectile dysfunctions can ruin couples but can be prevented and if necessary treated; and smaller dicks that get very hard are preferred over big dicks that don't get that hard.

Very interesting dude and very no-nonsense about the topic. I hope someone puts this talk on Youtube.
 

thorshammer

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
83
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
93
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm am hardest in the morning and less so at night, but it still stands up at night. I find when I have sex after hours of drinking it improves my stamina but gives me one of those hard ons that's hard enough to penetrate but can't stand up on it's own, it is still thick but hangs down. I've found that fucking a girl with the really hard one will help them to orgasm faster than with the droopy one, even though the size is the same and I can go longer with the drunk one.
I know that my friends with smaller cocks than me are harder than mine on average, I guess that' one drawback of a large penis.
 

spunkyboy2008

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Posts
336
Media
10
Likes
38
Points
113
Location
England
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think this is a problem likely to be encountered unless you do something radically wrong with your PE and go totally overboard. In fact I've found that it helps improve erection quality and most report the same thing.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah but what about us?

If I'm working to make my cock bigger then it's for me and I wager most men who PE will say the same thing. They're not doing it for anyone other than themselves. Yeah they might imagine others will enjoy it too, but in the end, it's for their own self-esteem.

I don't care what women or other guys think of my dick. I care what I think of it.
 

MrGoodDate

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Posts
1,238
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
193
Location
near Kansas City
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Those first remarks and conclusions are very unspecific. Just because some one has the title of doctor, it does not mean he/she knows everything. Did he has research evidence about harm and erectile disfunction?
 

B_johnschlong

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
653
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Gender
Male
Those first remarks and conclusions are very unspecific. Just because some one has the title of doctor, it does not mean he/she knows everything. Did he has research evidence about harm and erectile disfunction?

For the first two PE techniques I think he was drawing on scientific evidence. After all, as a urologist he gets to see a lot of damaged penises and he may be the one who has to deal with dicks that went wrong after surgical enlargements.

He's a urologist heading a clinical department at one of the country's largest hospitals. So I think you should take his advice rather seriously.

Over here in Europe there are no fake professor-doctors at university-run top-hospitals.

About the jelqing he explicitly said that there has been no scientific research on this, which is exactly why he cautioned against practising it.


To me jelqing seems rather harmless, though, and I've read many people's stories in which they say they have achieved better erections because of it. Still, there might be some unsafe techniques.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
I find this kind of an interesting series of thoughts from what I am going to make the assumption is an MD.

I am going to play "devil's advocate" here just to provoke some thought. What I am going to state does not mean that I agree or disagree with what the good doctor has said, it only means that you as a reader need to be able to place it in context.

This doctor, if my impression is correct generates at least a portion of his income by his writings as an author of books.

If he were to turn around and write, "PE is great, PE is fantastic, Jelq is cool, Kagels are cool" and so on and so forth he is not going to generate any readership. In order to market material of this nature you must disagree and present evidence of a clear and present danger from the activity in question.

The way I read the initial posting it implies that all surgery damages erectile ability. I can find a whole bunch of Penis Enlargement Surgeons that will disagree with him. Are they going to be any more honest than he is? None of us can answer that one.

Jelq, Kagels, vacuum pumping, and all the rest indeed do have the ability to damage a penis. So does getting kicked in the groin by a horse, so does slipping off the seat on a men's bicycle, prostate cancer can really kill one's erectile capability and yes indeed smoking and most blood pressure medications will also destroy erectile function.

Now, by presenting the information as he has in sweeping generalities the public now want's to know specifics. How are they going to find out the specifics? (if he indeed cites them) They are going to find out by buying his book or other written literature of course.

When I worked for and with Gary Griffin, I watched a great deal as he composed his advertising. Here were some of the lines that went into various publications: "Learn how ancient Sudanese Muslim's grew mammoth foot long penises." "Learn about the great supplement that hardens erections." (arginine)
Gary Griffin's advertising was at times considered by me to be "over the top" with regards to common sense.

This MD (If that is indeed his educational background) has used an extremely low key subtile approact to accomplish exactly the same thing. An extremely brilliant author can easily manupulate an interview into advertising and this I feel is exactly what we have here.

I do not disagree with his generalities, but, again everyting stated in the original posting can be disputed and argued in both directions by qualified individuals. If one went to any group of men who had achieved success with a given enlargement method they would refer to this man as a "quack".

The next truth or "half-truth" is regarding the effectiveness of the little blue pill.

When the erectile orals are inneffective it is because vascular leakage exceeds the ability of the oral medication to cope with it. When compared to injectable erectile drugs most orals would rate as low as only a 15%-20% boost.

There are some other factors that are really not being mentioned. Men with extremely large penises have historically always not achieved the degree of erection that those with very small dimensions have. The erectile tissues simply are very large and the pressure and the controlled vaso constriction and dilation required in cases such as this are higher than many men produce even by age 35. Again, this is an easy matter to deal with these days, but a man who has never done any of this can just as easily have a problem if his original genetics determined that he was going to be of mammoth endowment. Not all men with mammoth endowments have problems....some but not all do.

One of the things that I have found over the years of research that I have done is that the numbers of men who have indeed injured themselves by percentage are in fact amazingly very small. The penis is by and large a very resiliant chunk of tissue and it does surprisingly well.

Unless one can specifically pinpoint things to a far greater degree, I again see this as a "golden tongue" very cleverly taking control in an interview situation and turning it into the best and most subtle of "infomercials".

Food for thought.................
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Straight away the alleged doctor in question is incorrect.

There has been precisely one completed clinical study on jelqing (which was called, the Chartham Method) and that is Dr. Brian Richards' study done in 1975 and published in the British Journal of Human Sexuality. The results of the study were overwhelmingly positive, though it must be noted that the sample size was relatively small. Below is a court transcript describing Dr. Richards' credentials and the findings of the study:

Dr. Brian Alfred Richards, a doctor of medicine in the United Kingdom, with bachelors degrees in medicine and surgery, testified for respondent. Following his internship, he served as a senior medical officer with the rank of major in Her Majesty's 1st Brigade of Guards. Thereafter he returned to civilian medicine in general practice as a family physician, including areas of surgery, obstetrics, and psychiatry. His particular field of interest is sexual medicine which he described as a study of sexual dysfunction, its treatment and cure (Tr. 121-125). He is regarded by his peers as an expert in sexual medicine (Tr. 157). Approximately 50 percent of his practice is in the field of sexual medicine. He has seen many hundreds of patients in this area (Tr. 126). Many patients seek out Dr. Richards for his expertise in the area of sexual dysfunction and others are referred to him by other physicians (Tr. 202). For several years he has lectured on the subject of sexual medicine at hospitals and post-graduate medical schools (Tr. 126-127). He has written about 100 articles in the field and is a member of the editorial board of the British Journal of Sexual Medicine, a reputable journal read almost exclusively by the medical profession (Tr. 127-129). 9. Dr. Richards first learned of the "Chartham Method" when it was mentioned to him by a patient who claimed to have used it with success. Some time later he ordered it through the mail in the course of investigating various sexual aids in connection with his interest and practice in sexual medicine (Tr. 164, 165). In mid-1975, at a luncheon attended by several persons interested in the field of sexual medicine including a representative of respondent, Dr. Richards was invited to conduct a trial on the "Chartham Method," Dr. Richards to provide the expertise and labor, respondent to provide the equipment free of charge. Dr. Richards agreed, thinking such a trial would be useful. According to Dr. Richards, he was not paid to conduct the test, has no interest in the company distributing the "Chartham Method", and his fee for testifying is in no way dependent on the outcome of this proceeding (Tr. 180). 10. Dr. Richards conducted the trial and prepared a report thereon received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 5. Sixty-four randomly selected patients of Dr. Richards participated in the study, thirty-two as test subjects using the "Chartham Method" and thirty-two as a control group (Tr. 140, 186). Dr. Richards excluded from the test group those who by reason of special problems or conditions would cause confusional factors (Tr. 192). None of the test subjects had what Dr. Richards would characterize as an underdeveloped penis (Tr. 184). 11. The trial lasted approximately three months. It began with measurement of the penis of each test subject at maximal erection. Length was measured with a metal rule and slide marker, the base of the rule being placed on the pubic symphysis and pressed firmly against it. The slide was then moved to the top of the glans where the measurement was read. Girth was measured with a flexible metal tape at a position one inch proximal to the coronal sulcus. The same technicians conducted all measurements throughout the trial with the object of reducing personal error factors (RX-5). 12. After the initial measurements, test subjects were instructed in the "Chartham Method" and told to start practicing it (Tr. 139). Insofar as possible the penis of each subject was thereafter measured, in the method above described, on a weekly basis (Tr. 139, 140). Dr. Richards recorded each measurement. Of the test subjects two dropped out of the test and two achieved no gain in dimensions. Dr. Richards recorded gains among the twenty-eight remaining subjects ranging from 2.4 cm. to 3.6 cm. (.94 in. - 1.4 in.) in length and from 1.4 cm. to 3.1 cm. (.55 in. - 1.2 inc.) in girth (Tr. 142; RX-5). No changes of any significance were found in the measurements taken of the control subjects (Tr. 145, 146). He reported the success rate as 87.5 percent in the test group (Tr. 143). In Dr. Richards' opinion, the study was conducted in accordance with prevalent medical and scientific standards (Tr. 142). The report of Dr. Richards' study has been accepted for publication in the British Journal of Sexual Medicine (Tr. 143). 13. Dr. Richards' conclusion as a result of the test was that the "Chartham Method" is a very certain and very positive working method for enlargement of the penis (Tr. 146, 147). His rationale for the results observed was that as the result of the intense application of the "Chartham Method" for three months the actual tissue spaces of the penis had increased sufficiently to account for the changes in measurement; that the tissue spaces of the erectile tissue of the penis had been expanded to the extent that they would accept more blood during erection (Tr. 146, 147). 14. In Dr. Richards' opinion the "Chartham Method" will enable a large percentage of males to enlarge the dimension of the penis and, to his satisfaction, is a scientifically evaluated and proven effective means for so doing. Further, in his opinion, it incorporates new and significantly different principles from all other methods and products intended to increase the size of the penis that he knows of (Tr. 148). 15. Dr. Richards was skeptical that enlargement of the penis produced by the "Chartham Method" would be sustained for any considerable length of time. He will not be satisfied on that point until he has done further investigation (Tr. 208, 211). -US Postal Service Docket 5/102
It must be noted that this transcript is from a lawsuit brought against the manufacturers of PE products who relied on Dr. Richards' findings to defend their case, which they lost. Court findings, however, are not clinical scientific findings and Dr. Richards' credentials are impeccable for the type of study he conducted. There have been other PE studies proposed, but to date, none have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal as Dr. Richards' has been.
 

B_johnschlong

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
653
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Gender
Male


This doctor, if my impression is correct generates at least a portion of his income by his writings as an author of books.

If he were to turn around and write, "PE is great, PE is fantastic, Jelq is cool, Kagels are cool" and so on and so forth he is not going to generate any readership.

Mmm, I'm not so sure about that.

Just imagine the first MD to actually write a book about safe PE enlargement methods. Such a book would probably sell better than the Bible. Every man on the planet would buy it. It would become the most sold book ever.

So I think your starting argument is debatable.
 

seahorses

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Posts
921
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah but what about us?

If I'm working to make my cock bigger then it's for me and I wager most men who PE will say the same thing. They're not doing it for anyone other than themselves. Yeah they might imagine others will enjoy it too, but in the end, it's for their own self-esteem.

I don't care what women or other guys think of my dick. I care what I think of it.

Well put Jason. I would also add I have been pumping for over 30 years with positive results and involved with other forms of PE for the last 8; equally without damage. However, I do feel, judging by the questions raised and comments made in forums such as LPSG, that not enough is understood on how to practice safely. guy's tend to put their cocks under too much pressure and that's where the problems stem from. Remember, the doctor only sees bad cases