The "Mass" Factor - What's Yours? What's the Biggest?

[D_Miltie Orgasmic]

Here's an idea my partner suggested for gauging size...

Multiply the length by thickness (as measured with a tape measure wrapped around the thickest part of the cock).

He's 9 X 7 which gives him a "mass factor" of 63.

I'm 8 x 5; so my mass factor is only 40.

Other examples: say you're (or you know someone who is) 10" x 5". You can conclude that it's a long dick, but it really doesn't have as much "mass" as a dude with a cock that's (only) 8" X 7" (mass factor: 50 vs. 56). While size may not be everything "mass" definitely is something...think about it the next time someone says they're 10"!

 

[burns1de]

For me:

8" x 6" = 48. Not bad... I guess, lol.

 

[D_Miltie Orgasmic]

NOT bad AT ALL!!! You're pix clearly show that length alone isn't the whole story...

Let's say "massive" cocks = a "mass factor" of 48 or greater?

 

[Joseph]

6 x 5,5 = 33
Well I should be proud for having over 20 I guess

 

[D_Miltie Orgasmic]

6 x 5,5 = 33
Well I should be proud for having over 20 I guess

No judgements! I'm only a "40" ~

Let's say, > 30 is "big" (someone who is 5" long may be 7" thick...I'd call that "perfect" but that's me...)

 

[burns1de]

NOT bad AT ALL!!! You're pix clearly show that length alone isn't the whole story...

Let's say "massive" cocks = a "mass factor" of 48 or greater?

LOL, well, I certainly won't complain about my size being used as a barometer
for others.

 

[D_Miltie Orgasmic]

burns1de, I'd say your cock is pretty "epic" and definitely falls into the massive category. Uncut too? Whoa.

 

[Multipass]

Someone posted this volume chart on here a while ago. It's using a different calculation but the end result is the same idea.

oh... and i'd be 45... not massive

 

[D_Miltie Orgasmic]

Someone posted this volume chart on here a while ago. It's using a different calculation but the end result is the same idea.

oh... and i'd be 45... not massive

...not "massive" by one person's "standard", but pretty bloody close!

That chart is kinda confusing...it's probably easier to just multiply?

 

[Knight Attrition]

35.75 here, can I round up? Its pretty close to 36

 

[B_Danni-licks]

my bfs mass is 112

 

[burns1de]

my bfs mass is 112

So he's like 10.5" by 10"? His life must suck.

 

[Mackleanen Beebarf]

Mine's somewhere between 45 and 50, depending on where the "official" girth measurement would be taken.

 

[Long&Thick]

I feel small, my "mass factor" is 34.5.

 

[mightythickcock]

56 here (8x7)

 

[loggerheadtop]

>While size may not be everything, "mass" definitely is something

I'd say "while length may not be everything, ...".
The new calculation is a welcum adjustment to the usual obsession with length, which is not necessarily what most "consumers" are looking for anyway. There's plenty of evidence right here on site that lots of women and gay btms rate the pleasure-giving potential of extra girth over that of length. So, mass seems a better, single stat guideline to what's on offer. Even better than that, though, is to continue to supply both dimensions so the length-to-girth proportion can be worked out. And with proportions, we're getting into aesthetic territory ... Is there a relevant thread?

 

[edaws31]

i like that system i'm 36.5 (6.5 x 5.6)

 

[OmahaBeef]

I come in at a measly, slightly over 60ish...

...OB

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

58.5

 

[MadCock]

46.88 to 52 mass factor for me.