(CQ) Cock Quotient

kewger

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
164 here

Shouldn't there be a valuation including girth. I'm girthy so I want it included dammit! :mad::tongue:

I agree, I think you should include girth to get the maximum accuracy, short of volume, which you could measure with a graduated beaker.

Volume would settle the controversy forever, but then again, you could also include the "hardness factor" using the shore scale.

http://www.lpsg.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,731
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree, I think you should include girth to get the maximum accuracy, short of volume, which you could measure with a graduated beaker.

Volume would settle the controversy forever, but then again, you could also include the "hardness factor" using the shore scale.

[URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images/icons/icon7.gif[/URL]


Does my radar detect another engineer here, kewger?
Well if it has cum down to that, then I feel we should use Shore Scale A. Shore Scale B would only be appropriate for those guys with steel-like erections! LOL:smile: :smile: :smile:
 

over13inches

Experimental Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Posts
908
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
238
Location
Midlands, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Good work donkeyboy & bubba - this seems to be the best way of measuring overall size on the site to date! You might want to patent this idea!

Incidentally CQ637 if I've got it right...

O13
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,506
Media
104
Likes
23,958
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Good work donkeyboy & bubba - this seems to be the best way of measuring overall size on the site to date! You might want to patent this idea!

Incidentally CQ637 if I've got it right...

O13

Thank you.

Remember: cubic measurement, like linear measurement, requires photographic evidence.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,731
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Good work donkeyboy & bubba - this seems to be the best way of measuring overall size on the site to date! You might want to patent this idea!

Incidentally CQ637 if I've got it right...

O13


Aw shucks....this was nothing ....just routine use of our CQ..oops I mean IQ. Anyway, your cock CQ of 637 is correct as you calculated it..my gosh man what a fuckin unbelievably humongous piece of cock you are blessed with. I won't ask what you do with it but it does cause some conjecture in my mind! Thanks for posting!:biggrin1: :smile: :tongue: :smile::wink: :rolleyes: :smile: Donkey
 

DeepFun

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Posts
66
Media
2
Likes
91
Points
338
Location
Columbia (Missouri, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
On the face of it, something that reflects both length as well as girth initially sounds like an ideal system. However, it seems like differing sizes could also yield identical results, where a girthy cock lacking length could give the same CQ as a long cock lacking girth. Granted, since we all have the inherent flaws of all humans, we would all have a knee-jerk positive response to large numbers regardless of the factors used to arrive at those numbers, but those prone to seeking thickness specifically, or length specifically, would then have to subsequently ask for the length and diameter in order to know what they wanted to know in the first place, which makes CQ irrelevant as well as a speedbump in the process, an aggravating misdirection down a side path when we wanted to stay on the main road. Personally I don't see it as much of a hassle to deal with two numbers, which when I see them they automatically give me a good idea of the dimensions. The fellow who has the 13.75 x 8 dimensions, seeing those two numbers, lets me know exactly his length, and exactly his girth (both admirably huge), without having to do any math. Whereas the CQ 637, while it's a huge number also, gives me no idea of what exactly he's packing, even though is sounds like a flagpole I can't even begin to visualize it.

Prediction? The concept of having one magical number that reflects both dimensions will not even begin to catch on, for the exact reasons I stated above. Sorry.

Now if you were to devise with a nomenclature that reflects both, say where the first number or numbers are the length and the subsequent numbers are the diameter then maybe that could happen. The fellow with the dimensions I quoted earlier might then be 13758, and we could kind of logically figure that out knowing the 75 was probably a .75 and the last number logically being an 8 rather than the illogic of a 58 or .58, as long as everyone knew to measure to the nearest .25 then perhaps....

But it all seems like chinese math to combat something that wasn't really a problem to begin with, like using a shotgun to kill a fly. The old "length by diameter" will probably have to suffice for the next millenia or so.

I do appreciate higher thinking though. It just probably won't work in this instance. KISS = keep it simple ......
 

Silvertip

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
7,425
Media
473
Likes
15,260
Points
468
Location
Alamosa (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Well Basque, since you've bumped your own thread, here's my data:

Length CQ - 133
Girth CQ - 128
Volume CQ - 212

Not as impressive as many of the numbers thrown around here, but they're honest numbers and I've had no complaints to date about being anything different than advertised.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,731
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Well Basque, since you've bumped your own thread, here's my data:

Length CQ - 133
Girth CQ - 128
Volume CQ - 212

Not as impressive as many of the numbers thrown around here, but they're honest numbers and I've had no complaints to date about being anything different than advertised.

Real and impressive numbers, big guy!:smile:
 
D

deleted105034

Guest
Assuming average length = 5.8'', and average girth = 4.9'',

Length CQ = 134
Girth CQ = 118
Volume CQ = 188
 
D

deleted105034

Guest
Assuming average length = 5.8" and average girth = 4.9"

Length CQ = 130
Girth CQ = 120
Volume CQ = what's the formula again? :tongue:

Volume CQ = ( ( your girth ) / 3.14159 / 2 ) ^ 2 * 3.14159 * ( your length ) / 11

Judging by your CQ's for length and girth, your Volume CQ should be close to 188.

~T
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
462
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It occurs to me that there should be a numeric measurement of cock length which similar to IQ (intelligence quotient) should facilitate quick comparison between and among individuals! Irrespective of whether measured in the English or metric system, cocks of the same length would have the same ratio to designate size.
I propose that the CQ (cock quotient) be established. It is proposed as the ratio obtained by dividing your cock length in inches or centimeters by the average length of cocks expressed in inches or centimeters and multiplying that ratio by 100.
I use myself as an example: 9.30 inches length./. 5.80 inches average=
1.60 x 100 = 160 CQ.
A European with an identical length cock would do the following calculation: 23.62 c length./. 14.73 c avg= 1.60 X 100 = 160 CQ

Do you like this idea?
Would you adopt this cock quotient if it became accepted practice?
What is your CQ?

How does 5.80 average inches translate to 1.60 ? :confused:
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,731
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
How does 5.80 average inches translate to 1.60 ? :confused:

You missed the divide sign, mate ! 9.3 divided by 5.80 = 1.60! I used ./. for a division sign!
This never caught on, so don't bother your sweet head with it!:biggrin1:
B
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
462
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You missed the divide sign, mate ! 9.3 divided by 5.80 = 1.60! I used ./. for a division sign!
This never caught on, so don't bother your sweet head with it!:biggrin1:
B

Yes, sweetheart ....You're the mathematician ...I'm just a lowly bottom.:biggrin1::biggrin1::wink: