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

[mimosurfDutch]

66

 

[tripod]

my bfs mass is 112

She's on the metric system... I'm too American to convert that into inches... is there a Canadian in the house?

 

[Nitrofiend]

42. It's an interesting idea. You need to establish standards for it to mean anything though.

 

[Oncamale28]

actually mass=volume. Volume could be approx using the formula for a cylinder. Length X area (of a circle). Area of a circle = 3.14 (Phi) X the raidus (1/2 diameter) squared.. or mass= L X 3.14 X r X r.

so if ur dic was 7" and 2" across (radius would be 1 or 1/2 the dia) then your volume would be 7 X 3.14 X 1 X 1 or about 22 cubic inches.

Greater thickness gives more increase to volume/mass than length. An example...

6.5 in length and 3" across = 46 cu in

8 in length and 2.5 " across = 39 cu in

The diameter (length across) by the way is the girth (measurement around) divided by 3.14 (phi).. so if you measured 6" around your diameter would be approx 1.9 and radius 1.45

 

[103120]

actually mass=volume. Volume could be approx using the formula for a cylinder. Length X area (of a circle). Area of a circle = 3.14 (Phi) X the raidus (1/2 diameter) squared.. or mass= L X 3.14 X r X r.

so if ur dic was 7" and 2" across (radius would be 1 or 1/2 the dia) then your volume would be 7 X 3.14 X 1 X 1 or about 22 cubic inches.

Greater thickness gives more increase to volume/mass than length. An example...

6.5 in length and 3" across = 46 cu in

8 in length and 2.5 " across = 39 cu in

The diameter (length across) by the way is the girth (measurement around) divided by 3.14 (phi).. so if you measured 6" around your diameter would be approx 1.9 and radius 1.45

in other words, if its 8 long and 6 thick thats,

8x6x6 = 288

 

[thickgirth]

About mass factor 48.
Guess my girth helps a lot

 

[MonsterUncut]

I've never considered myself "massive", but by this.....9.75x7.5 when full on hard = 73.125 just boosted my ego a notch or two. Thank you!

Peace

 

[5incher]

5"1/4 x 5" guess Iam a 25 so far i have the smallest mass factor

 

[edaws31]

23 would be the average (5.25 x 4.5) according to studies

 

[Knight Attrition]

Of course the problem with this system is that the numbers are deceptive. The "mass factor" increases faster the larger the penis is. Meaning that the change in mass factor from an 8"x7" to a 9" x 8" is much larger than the change in 5" x 4" to 6" x 5". Which is correct mathematically but I suspect that most people would feel that it would be far more important, and girls/btms would get far more sensation, when changing from 5x4 to 6x5 than from 8x7 to 9x8. Then again I'm not a girl or gay so what the hell do I know

 

[hugecock24cm]

My mass factor is a even 60.

But I'm glad that someone pointed out that volume would be a more accurate weigh to guage mass. However, no one's cock is a perfect cylinder. Cocks are not perfectly round nor are they of uniform diameter the entire length of the shaft.

So for now a simple length x circumference = mass factor is a great approximation.

 

[big al004318]

8 x 7 = 56 dont think thats too bad but looking at my cock i must be about half the size of danni's bf how the hell do you use something that big?

 

[big al004318]

you do have a point there so you think shes a fantacy size queen then?

 

[Pecker]

60 to 62

 

[Onslow]

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).

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"!

So waht you're saying is a penis can go deep and cause internal damage and still have minor mass or it can stretch someone wide open and be of lesser mass than a shorter stubber? In other words an 11x3 0r an 8x4 would be less massive than a 6x6-- Whch in essence means if a person has a preference for depth, stretching or total mass they now have to weigh all decisions. I'll stay with my method of trying each one out seperately.

23 would be the average (5.25 x 4.5) according to studies

I see--

Of course the problem with this system is that the numbers are deceptive. The "mass factor" increases faster the larger the penis is. Meaning that the change in mass factor from an 8"x7" to a 9" x 8" is much larger than the change in 5" x 4" to 6" x 5". Which is correct mathematically but I suspect that most people would feel that it would be far more important, and girls/btms would get far more sensation, when changing from 5x4 to 6x5 than from 8x7 to 9x8. Then again I'm not a girl or gay so what the hell do I know

You know more than you're admitting to--such as multiplication.

60 to 62

Interesting--it seems to match up perfectly with your age--wonder if it'll increase next year (one can only hope:smile: )

 

[hung]

Using the Manlandscaping formula I come in at: 43.31.

Using the graphic that Multipass posted about I come in at somewhere between 19 and 20.

No problem. I used the inch system. Of course to compute metric you would simply take 2.54 times each inch.

Therefore after computing my metric sizes I would be a 279.26 using the Manlandscaping formula.

Wow!!!!!!!!!

 

[lowhanger]

I have never even consider myself more than average but my fiance always tells me it is "nice"...whatever that means.

Using this formula makes me feel a bit better. :smile: Thanks for the pick-me-up!

7.25 x 6.25 = 45

 

[GBF64]

33.75 but very happy with it.

 

[Awesum9]

57.75 (8.25 X 7)

 

[Knight Attrition]

You know more than you're admitting to--such as multiplication.

What do you mean?