Bigger is better... simple math

[Dee]

I'm new here so hope you don't mind a rambling thought or two.
I've been asked why I like well hung men so much and I think it's just a simple matter of math. If my figuring is correct, an average guy has about 25 square inches of manhood. The man I was used to for so many years had over 63 square inches of pleasure tool. That's more than DOUBLE the sensation area a well hung man can pleasure me on... trying to count the extra sensation from having the skin stretched so tight on top of the additional pleasure area and the sensation and orgasms are OUT OF THIS WORLD!! :biggrin1:

Does that make sense??

 

[philboy]

It makes every sense.
There are a lot of guys on site who are "65ers".
Welcome to paradise.

 

[Matthew]

Bigger isn't necessarily better for everyone, Dee, but I bet there are a lot of guys here who are glad it's better for you.

 

[Dr Rock]

math is hard

 

[ClaireTalon]

I agree with your calculations, Dee, they're straightforward and right. However, there's a line where we can start to debate, and it's drawn at interpreting your results. The question is: How many of his outside square inches will make contact with your inside square inches? Your vagina has a limit beyond which it can't be stretched physically, and maybe one before where the stretching will feel so uncomfortable that it isn't causing you pleasure any more. And any square inches he has more than your maximum are excessive waste, useless.

So, it all boils down again to the old thing: Find your perfect fit, where all of his square inches will make contact with yours.

 

[Mr. Russ]

Bigger is better. I had sex with a girl one weekend, then a buddy did her a couple weeks after. He is a thick eight inches and she told him that he was much better. I did get her to orgasm once!

 

[Shelby]

Nice tits! :151:

 

[Capritom]

I'm new here so hope you don't mind a rambling thought or two.
I've been asked why I like well hung men so much and I think it's just a simple matter of math. If my figuring is correct, an average guy has about 25 square inches of manhood. The man I was used to for so many years had over 63 square inches of pleasure tool. That's more than DOUBLE the sensation area a well hung man can pleasure me on... trying to count the extra sensation from having the skin stretched so tight on top of the additional pleasure area and the sensation and orgasms are OUT OF THIS WORLD!! :biggrin1:

Does that make sense??

I don't figure your guy's "over 63 square inches." That would mean that if he had 9" in length, he'd have to more than 7" in width. I think your multiplying length x circumference, which doesn't produce any geometric valid measurement. That doesn't mean, of course, that your guy wasn't very well hung.

 

[stud_hunter]

I'm new here so hope you don't mind a rambling thought or two.
I've been asked why I like well hung men so much and I think it's just a simple matter of math. If my figuring is correct, an average guy has about 25 square inches of manhood. The man I was used to for so many years had over 63 square inches of pleasure tool. That's more than DOUBLE the sensation area a well hung man can pleasure me on... trying to count the extra sensation from having the skin stretched so tight on top of the additional pleasure area and the sensation and orgasms are OUT OF THIS WORLD!! :biggrin1:

Does that make sense??

Oh believe me it makes sense to me! Of course there's a limit, and if you're multiplying length by girth I find 40-50 to be just perfect (that's still pretty big). But certainly, Dee, you do not have to tell me! :tongue: A little stretching, that totally full feeling, and above all the orgasms, orgasms, ORGASMS!!:tongue: :biggrin1: :tongue:
There are a lot of women who aren't size queens though. Some of girlfriends really say size doesn't matter to them as long as it's not tiny. But I also have a couple of girlfriends who like big ones like I do. In any case, welcome to the club!

 

[mindseye]

Nope, length x circumference gives (approximate) surface area. The calculation is valid, but . . .

. . . I disagree that the application of the results are valid. If it were all about surface area, then a penis 9 inches long and 5 inches in circumference (long and slender) would be 'equal' to a penis 3 inches long and 15 inches in circumference. In fact, though, the latter penis would probably be unable to penetrate most partners because of the extraordinary girth, and even if it could, there wouldn't be much length to stroke with.

I believe that the original poster's size preference has a significant psychological component, which she's trying to rationalize using mathematics.

 

[Snakebyte]

If it were all about surface area, then a penis 9 inches long and 5 inches in circumference (long and slender) would be 'equal' to a penis 3 inches long and 15 inches in circumference.

i liked this one :biggrin1:

 

[Big Del]

Dee put my poor befuddled brain (and others here as well) to rest what was the size of this perfect cock of your acquaintance!

 

[agent]

Surface Area of a Cylinder = 2 pi r 2 + 2 pi r h, although i guess technically you can't count the bottom of the "cylinder" in the equation

 

[nicolas204]

Nope, length x circumference gives (approximate) surface area. The calculation is valid, but . . .

. . . I disagree that the application of the results are valid. If it were all about surface area, then a penis 9 inches long and 5 inches in circumference (long and slender) would be 'equal' to a penis 3 inches long and 15 inches in circumference. In fact, though, the latter penis would probably be unable to penetrate most partners because of the extraordinary girth, and even if it could, there wouldn't be much length to stroke with.

I believe that the original poster's size preference has a significant psychological component, which she's trying to rationalize using mathematics.

That's pretty funny Mindseye!

As for your original post Dee, it makes perfect sense to me. Just a couple of nights ago I was teasing my girlfriend of seven years with a good sized dildo. I took a lot of time and got her all worked up with it. My cock is a fair size larger though and I finally gave up the dildo to give her the real thing. Her reaction was bliss :biggrin1: and her oh so very politically incorrect first words were verbatim...you guessed it: ''Bigger is better!'' Even though I pushed in really slowly she came before I even had time to go two thirds into her...

I should do that more often, it was great fun :smile: !

 

[Dee]

Many of the comments were interesting and I enjoyed reading them all.
I wasn't really trying to justify why I enjoy big men, but rather come up with something that might make sense as to why it feels sooooo good.
More surface touching me inside means more pleasure!! Even if it means some uncomfortable stretching at times!!

 

[Dee]

Stud Hunter... 40-50 ratio?
That sounds so intriguing. Could you further expound on that?
:biggrin1:

 

[stud_hunter]

Stud Hunter... 40-50 ratio?
That sounds so intriguing. Could you further expound on that?
:biggrin1:

Not a ratio, just a range. I like 'em big but I have a limit. I'd say length/girthwise once you get to like 8.5X6 that's about as big as I want. My ideal is about 7-8 in. long by 5-6 in. around (rough estimate of course). If it's much bigger than that I find it uncomfortable.

 

[Irish]

A woman talking about enjoying big men and math...

My heart's all a-flutter.

 

[JeffGrncrs]

The math is definately correct but other factors are also important. Most women, after a size being decent put much rating on hardness. Also too is stamina. What good is a big cock that lasts a few minutes. Lots of ingredients but your math is right but there is more to great sex than that.

 

[gg42]

Nice tits! :151:

Yup! We men are so shallow!

I think volume is a better indicator of size - pi * dia^2/4 x length (dia =circumference/pi). So it takes a really long one to give as much volume as a thick one...sigh....