Oh I agree with you. Perceptions, among most things that can be seen, will tend to vary from person to person. And you certainly can't dismiss how something generally "feels" to someone else. I mean girth appears to matter to some degree from what I generally hear from both women and gay or bi men, but just where the measurement usually starts and stops among them can't seem to be truly measureable. And some women, and I suspect men too, can actually "feel" total length beyond 6 inches. So this idea that long length can be mostly ignored unless it has a huge girth with it, has never made much sense to me. I just don't think this kind of thing can be that easy to judge.
Difference between big and huge?
- Thread starter Biggish Ben
- Start date
Oh I agree with you. Perceptions, among most things that can be seen, will tend to vary from person to person. And you certainly can't dismiss how something generally "feels" to someone else. I mean girth appears to matter to some degree from what I generally hear from both women and gay or bi men, but just where the measurement usually starts and stops among them can't seem to be truly measureable. And some women, and I suspect men too, can actually "feel" total length beyond 6 inches. So this idea that long length can be mostly ignored unless it has a huge girth with it, has never made much sense to me. I just don't think this kind of thing can be that easy to judge.
bertrand4skin
1st Like
D_yabbadabbadont
Experimental Member
I agree with everything you say but isn't this all about guys measuring thier dicks so what does that have to do with insertsble length? If a guy who 60lbs overweight can insert 3" but then he loses 50lbs and now he can insert 5" regardless of what he weighs he still has a 5" dick. Right?
D_yabbadabbadont
Experimental Member
according to that argument everyone has the same biceps measurement. all people have to do is train
Not sure what you mean here? A 600lbs fat guy can have 40" bicepts???
This thread is a nice illustration of penis image problems. It seem like everyone is fighting for their own cause to make the best of what they've got.
You can't even agree on how to measure! :alcoholic:
Thanks for the entertainment boys!
You can't even agree on how to measure! :alcoholic:
Thanks for the entertainment boys!
D_yabbadabbadont
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Posts
- 806
- Media
- 46
- Likes
- 12
- Points
- 153
- Location
- Waco, Texas
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2006
- Posts
- 4,508
- Media
- 104
- Likes
- 24,035
- Points
- 618
- Location
- United States
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Clearly the most complete measurement of any object for total mass is its displacement. Stated another way with regard to a penis, one would calculate the volume of a cylinder for a close approximation of the displacement. The formula for that is pi*r2*h. For example, an average size is 6" of length and 5" of girth. Starting with the girth: 5" divided by pi (3.1415) equals diameter of approximately 1.6". The radius is half the diameter, so .80". We square that (.80 times .80) and arrive at .64 which is then multiplied by pi to arrive at 2.01. This is the displacement (in cubic inches) for every inch of length, so we multiply by 6 in this instance and get a tad over 12 cubic inches of volume. Average dicks are in this range, 15 cubes is large, 20 is huge, 30 is monster.
There endeth the word of Bubba the Magnificent
There endeth the word of Bubba the Magnificent
yes, he only have to loose all that fat and train so hard, that his biceps grows to 40 inch :wink:
i was trying to show, that your argument is pointless. if someone has a ten inch dick, which is hiding behind six inches of fat, then ist's only a four inch dick and that's it. it doesn't matter that he could loose weight, unless he actually does it. until then it's a four inch dick with ten inch potential :biggrin1:
D_yabbadabbadont
Experimental Member
Ms Moxie, I would suggest a true measuring experiment with all of the members of LPSG (straight members) with you doing the measuring. This way we could ensure maximum hardness and arousal for accurate measurements.
Yes, and I would have the common sense to measure multiple times in multiple places
opcorn:(I stir the pot on Friday nights spent-in)
D_yabbadabbadont
Experimental Member
Yes, and I would have the common sense to measure multiple times in multiple places
(I stir the pot on Friday nights spent-in)
Chuckle, chuckle
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2006
- Posts
- 4,508
- Media
- 104
- Likes
- 24,035
- Points
- 618
- Location
- United States
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
I want to ask this on here, because maybe people can shed light on this formula... Me and my husband are both pretty hung (maybe not comparatively with some of the people on this site). But my measurements are 8 x 4.75 (the 8 is pretty consistent weather bone pressed or not, the 4.75 can maybe be down to 4.5 at the thinnest part. My husband is bigger, he is 7.5 x 6.25 (the 6.25 is his base, which is the largest part, but the majority of his penis is 5.5). When I hold both of our cocks, his is definitely noticeably thicker... so I won't argue that at all. But when I plug our measurements into that formula, it says at our minimum measurements I come out as 11.84, he at 16.51 (remember that 14 is considered big, and 21 huge), and at our maximum measurements (using the biggest measurement of girth and length that we can get), I am 14.08, and he is 22.85. That seems proportionately way bigger than our differences seem in real life? So I question the validity of that measuring formula. I have a huge head, so I know that adds some bulk... But recently I was on leave from Iraq (I am in the army), and we did one of those clone a willy's on both of our cocks. First of all, that is hard to do, lol you have to do it in the right time and temp, and you also have to be hard and keep it hard, which neither of us did. But the reason I bring that up, is that I think I got maybe a little harder than him, but we were both pretty much the same softer than our max by far... well once you make the mold you pour the latex in, and his was only a little more than mine (meaning he ran out of latex to fill the mold to the top). So I guess that formula shows him at 30-40% larger than me, when you do the calculations, but there is no way when we poured the mold.
Another point, that I question... say you have 2 penises (or is it penii lol), one is 11 inches long x 4.5 thick, the other is 5.5 long and 6.5 thick.
Which would you say is the larger penis and 11 incher or the 5.5 incher that is thick? Well the formula that the people on this site when the numbers are plugged in, the 11 incher gets a 17.37, and the 5.5 incher gets 18 rating... that just seems like that formula somehow favors girth BY FAR.
I am just curious how other people felt about this? Maybe that formula isn't totally correct, or maybe there is too much other things to consider like curve, head size... not sure.
My husband is definitely huge no doubt, i had him do the toilet paper roll test, and even his head barely fit inside, but his minimum measurements (not giving him any benefit of the doubt of 7x5.5 gives him a 16.51 rating, and my measurement of 8x4.75 (its funny I don't really have a minimum or maximum, because my cock is uniform, meaning it is always 8 long and about 4.5-4.75, so there is not that much variation on the girth, where his goes from the tip being about 5, to the middle (most of the shaft is 5.5, and the base gets up to 6.25, maybe a 6.5 if you get clear around the base all the way up to the pelvic bone), so his is harder to figure out what number to plug into the formula... so my measurement give me a 14.08 rating. None of our measurements are exaggerated AT all, I just thought this would be an interesting discussion because we actually did that clone a willy thing... but it is hard to tell because both of our clone a willies were about 2 inches shorter than in real life because neither of us could get hard... but he is way thicker, so I guess 2 more inches of his thicker cock could use up a lot more latex, but I still think that formula saying he is 30-40% bigger is not correct. And my example of the 11" er and the 5.5" also deserves some kind of an answer...
So that is the first question the validity of that formula. The second, is what number would you plug in for my husband's true cock measurement? His length is like 7" but if pointed downward may get to about 7.5, the very tip is 5-5.25 in girth most of the shft is 5.5, and the base is minimum 6.25, maybe max of 6.5... so how the heck do you plug in those numbers for the formula, what numbers would you use? Mine is easier, it is always 8 x 4.75 (and maybe the thinnest part goes to 4.5, so i usually measure the thinnest just for fairness)... but what would I plug in for his numbers to get one length and one width measurement when his gets so much thicker towards the base?
Thanks!
Another point, that I question... say you have 2 penises (or is it penii lol), one is 11 inches long x 4.5 thick, the other is 5.5 long and 6.5 thick.
Which would you say is the larger penis and 11 incher or the 5.5 incher that is thick? Well the formula that the people on this site when the numbers are plugged in, the 11 incher gets a 17.37, and the 5.5 incher gets 18 rating... that just seems like that formula somehow favors girth BY FAR.
I am just curious how other people felt about this? Maybe that formula isn't totally correct, or maybe there is too much other things to consider like curve, head size... not sure.
My husband is definitely huge no doubt, i had him do the toilet paper roll test, and even his head barely fit inside, but his minimum measurements (not giving him any benefit of the doubt of 7x5.5 gives him a 16.51 rating, and my measurement of 8x4.75 (its funny I don't really have a minimum or maximum, because my cock is uniform, meaning it is always 8 long and about 4.5-4.75, so there is not that much variation on the girth, where his goes from the tip being about 5, to the middle (most of the shaft is 5.5, and the base gets up to 6.25, maybe a 6.5 if you get clear around the base all the way up to the pelvic bone), so his is harder to figure out what number to plug into the formula... so my measurement give me a 14.08 rating. None of our measurements are exaggerated AT all, I just thought this would be an interesting discussion because we actually did that clone a willy thing... but it is hard to tell because both of our clone a willies were about 2 inches shorter than in real life because neither of us could get hard... but he is way thicker, so I guess 2 more inches of his thicker cock could use up a lot more latex, but I still think that formula saying he is 30-40% bigger is not correct. And my example of the 11" er and the 5.5" also deserves some kind of an answer...
So that is the first question the validity of that formula. The second, is what number would you plug in for my husband's true cock measurement? His length is like 7" but if pointed downward may get to about 7.5, the very tip is 5-5.25 in girth most of the shft is 5.5, and the base is minimum 6.25, maybe max of 6.5... so how the heck do you plug in those numbers for the formula, what numbers would you use? Mine is easier, it is always 8 x 4.75 (and maybe the thinnest part goes to 4.5, so i usually measure the thinnest just for fairness)... but what would I plug in for his numbers to get one length and one width measurement when his gets so much thicker towards the base?
Thanks!
- alx,
^^^ It's done by working out the volume, if you've got more girth you'll displace more.
Think of it this way you could be 1" longer and for simplicity sake youll have 1" extra volume. However if you have 1" more circumference then that 1" extents along the while length. So if you're 8" you'll have 8" extra.... Therefore girth can account for more overall.
... I know the above isnt exact scientific fact.
Think of it this way you could be 1" longer and for simplicity sake youll have 1" extra volume. However if you have 1" more circumference then that 1" extents along the while length. So if you're 8" you'll have 8" extra.... Therefore girth can account for more overall.
... I know the above isnt exact scientific fact.
That doesn't make sense, becuase calculating both of our total volume, I would have to have a 13" penis at 4.75" around to = his 7.5 x 6.26. I GUARANTEE if I added 5" to my dick, that I would displace a LOT more then him in that clone a willy thing. The formula doesn't seem to work correctly. Like I said, you could have a 5.5" long and that total volume is more than the thinner 11"???
Similar threads
