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

_avg_

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
1,648
Media
1
Likes
75
Points
133
Wow, who resurrected this old carcass?! Or more appropriately, why?

Anyways, has anyone mentioned that this is essentially what TheVisualiser.net does?







Oh, and ~45 "mass."
 

D_Miltie Orgasmic

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
153
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"!
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I haven't read this whole thread, but it is founded on an error. Multiplying length and girth (the OP says "thickness," but the figures that he gives as examples show that he is talking about girth, i.e., the distance around, not the distance across the shaft) will yield a figure proportionate to surface area, not to volume, and therefore not proportionate to mass. You would have to multiply length by the square of girth to get a figure proportionate to the mass of the penis.