Why Doesn't Bone-Pressed Count?

OCMuscleJock

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Posts
3,187
Media
88
Likes
3,079
Points
198
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
fat pad or not...when fucking and going deep...you usually are pushing that fat pad in anyway. Especially if you're fucking hard. **UNLESS you're freaky huge and cant get it all in* gay guys shouldn't have this issue with anal...TAKE IT ALL!! lol
 

Infernal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Posts
3,566
Media
7
Likes
5,140
Points
593
Age
54
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The reason I ask is because there are a TON of naysayers. All kinds of people going on about how pressing into the bone is bullshit or cheating. The first response to this thread by Infernal was this:

I'm glad the rest of you agree with me, as this is clearly BS. I can definitely insert my entire penis down to the pubic bone, past the fat pad. I have enjoyed many a night of grinding, bone to bone. It's not about adding the extra half-inch, it's about an accurate standard of measurement. One where the full insert-able length is taken into account. It's an issue of how deep you can go. That's the value of length. It's about not vanity. It's about pleasuring your woman.
...
...and a little bit of vanity. :biggrin1:

It seems clear that when you are deep inside someone, you have no REAL way of knowing how much of the tissue at the base of your penis is compressed, or if your partner can actually feel the difference. Taking your partners own fat pad into account - does their fat pad compress an equal amount to give you an extra bit of depth ? It is all very subjective and speculative.

Can you really tell the difference between 6.5 and 7 inches when you're deep inside and slamming against each other ? Technique is far more valuable than a half inch of compressed pubic fat, and the very short interval of compression can't possible make much of a difference. It really is about vanity and self perception, or the distinction wouldn't be important enough to warrant the frequent discussion.

[standard statement about opinions, endless variations of the human body, mileage variation, etc, etc, etc]
 

blutrane

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Posts
663
Media
17
Likes
2,468
Points
498
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh yeah, for sure. What you say is true. Duderino is on point too. Nobody's counting inches in the sack. But people are counting inches when they're measuring. I just say why write it off if you're actually using it? If people want an accurate number, then Bone-Pressed makes sense to me because that's how much dick you're actually using.
 

bassman70

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
271
Media
7
Likes
36
Points
173
Location
Staten Island
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It seems clear that when you are deep inside someone, you have no REAL way of knowing how much of the tissue at the base of your penis is compressed, or if your partner can actually feel the difference. Taking your partners own fat pad into account - does their fat pad compress an equal amount to give you an extra bit of depth ? It is all very subjective and speculative.

Can you really tell the difference between 6.5 and 7 inches when you're deep inside and slamming against each other ? Technique is far more valuable than a half inch of compressed pubic fat, and the very short interval of compression can't possible make much of a difference. It really is about vanity and self perception, or the distinction wouldn't be important enough to warrant the frequent discussion.

[standard statement about opinions, endless variations of the human body, mileage variation, etc, etc, etc]
My wife can feel the extra 3/4. When I grind it in I hit her cds.
 
1

185248

Guest
Mine reaches my navel which is spot on 8" Bone pressed or not, cause I dun have much tissue there. It's pretty easy to measure in a frontal pic with a soft cock. Piece of paper, place it on screen mark with penisil :), from pubic bone (where cock protrudes body) to tip of cock, then reverse upward to navel.

Sometimes, I have some spare time on my hands ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Silvertip

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
7,419
Media
473
Likes
15,084
Points
468
Location
Alamosa (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
... (One would need to factor in - among other things - the size of the objective lens, the focal length, the aperture at time of exposure, the size of the focal plane, distance from the lens, the size, relative angle and distance to another object in frame and the lighting used.) ...

Dude- Would you please explain how the "aperture at time of exposure" could have any bearing at all on an object's apparent size in a photo? I devoted a large part of my career to optics and technical photography and I can assure you that, other than absolute exposure, the f-stop (aperture) will only effect depth of field, so either objects in the image are in focus or they are not. If the focus is so bad as to affect analysis (as a good many on this site are) the image should just be discarded as invalid.
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
373
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't think there's much value to seeing exactly how much fat pad you can compress; it's going to be different for different people and positions. I think the only really good reason to do bone-pressed is that it's the only way to really compare, since any other starting point is a guess. If you're not trying to compare against some standard, then why bother measuring in the first place?
 

Silvertip

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
7,419
Media
473
Likes
15,084
Points
468
Location
Alamosa (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
.. Just an honest question. I'm curious.

And an honest question it is indeed. My short answer is that bone-pressed does count, at least to you. And I agree with your stand on the issue, as it relates to function. I would say that measuring an erect penis with a bone-pressed ruler delivers a true measure of the penis' ability to penetrate. And what fun is sex without penetration? Hehehe.:lmao:

On the other hand if you want to know the length of a penis anatomically you need to measure all the way back to the start of the corpora cavernosa penis, at the crura. That's well within the pubic arch, not far from the prostate, and the length will be noticeably more than what you measure bone-pressed. Of course, short of surgery, that would be a difficult measurement to obtain. But if you really want to relate to penis size anatomically you can just consider the erect tissue behind the scrotum, leading into the perineum, as part of your overall penile length. And, hey, that could be valid for someone who is simply worshipping the penis as an organ, without concern as to function.

Those who insist that bone-pressed doesn't count are clearly relating only to appearance. And that can be important too, for purposes of flaunting penis pictures on a site such as this or for sheer bragging rights. But in my own not-so-humble opinion the appearance standard is the least substantive of the three.

So it's all just a matter of what's important to the individual, where penis size is concerned.
 
Last edited:

dirkjesje

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Posts
1,407
Media
26
Likes
674
Points
258
Location
belgium
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
My fat% is very low - varies from 11 to 13%; so I don't have much fat pad - 0.5cm(0.2") or if I press the ruler with force to the bone max 1cm(0.4")
So bone pressed I'm close to 7"; but I mention allways my non bone pressed lenght, "WYSIWYG".
 

TheRob

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
5,673
Media
19
Likes
1,911
Points
333
Gender
Male
Unless your body fat percentage is pretty low, the length between the skin and the public bone isn't considered insertable length. Of course jamming a ruler deep into your flesh to get that extra half an inch measurement is just stupid.

I figured you would press lightly not try to stab yourself with the ruler...
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
373
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
I figured you would press lightly not try to stab yourself with the ruler...

You can't expect to get consistent measurements that way though. Even when using medical professionals on the same subject, measurements vary too much to be useful (+/- 0.25", so half an inch between longest and shortest) when done this way. So far only bone-pressed, maximally stretched (or drug-induced erection) measurements are at all reliable. If you want to compare at home, your best erection with the ruler pressed all the way in is the only way to go. BPEL averages a little above 6", and BPSL (stretched) a little below 6".

Technique is extremely important. I see some guys who think 5" BPEL is average (based on Wessells) not realizing that this is NBPEL, so they think their 5"BPEL is average when it's really a little smaller (below average, though not small.) If you think 6" is average and compare your NBPEL to that, you might think you're smaller.
 

duderino

Superior Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Posts
594
Media
118
Likes
7,776
Points
498
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I haven't gone through the rest of the thread but I must say I'm really happy to see a thoughtful response. Thank you!!

I intentionally never stated my measurements but they are (and this not me measuring myself - it's with the help of two separate GFs about ten years apart): max out at 9.5 x 7+ (that last one is tough to get accurately - it's always thickest before orgasm and that's an inopportune time to measure; so we got 7 and change and both have assumed 7.5 for girth - I am really thick. I dunno - I got lucky there - I'm proportionate length to girth so... anyway, those out there may feel free contest if you'd like, but the videos are the best for assessing accurate size. BTW, I'm 5'10" and 165lbs... if that counts.)

As for the body fat - this is the fancy scale that's supposed to measure all sorts of biometrics. I have it set to "athletic build" and that's the number it spits out. I have no doubt caliper measurements from various areas average together would be better; displacement even better still - there's visceral fat as well...

And I have NEVER been this lean in my entire life. No matter how hard I hit the gym I always had a bit of fat on my belly - just enough to make me think "I'll never be lean." Then I started endurance cycling - mileage, every day, sustained paces (group rides are best - yes, I've seen people puke off the bike and been close myself hitting the upper limits of zone 5) and intervals in between. By mileage I mean a FAST 50 mile training ride every saturday and sunday, at least another 150 during the week between evening rides and hill work and just getting from point a to b... WAY more fun than lifting weights, WAY WAY WAY more fun than running and if you add in some push ups in the morning... I LOOK like a cyclist or a runner, not an oiled up adonis. I started cycling because I couldn't afford a car and I needed to quit smoking. Couple of months later I'm training to race - go figure. That said, I've been in some nasty falls, I spend about as much on food (high carb low fat raw vegan - fruitarian!) as most people do on gas (a half-century will burn 2K cal. easily... once the fat is trimmed, you have to put in what you take out, and support basal metabolism on top of that).

They call cycling the hidden exercise - I can attest to that. Invest in a decent road bike, a good pair of clip ins and embrace the super-hero lycra (it makes a huge difference) and I can almost guarantee that after those first explosive revolutions on a light, stiff frame, with a greater delta-V between 0 and 20 than most cars - and you'll be hooked. Go at a reasonable pace (you'll want to push it - it's addicting) and in a couple of months look in the mirror. Don't worry about percentages - like you said, numbers count for nothing when it really counts.

I'm glad I'm not the only one!



Hey I like everything you've said there. There's definitely a lot of reverse king-konging when it comes to porn - vids where the guys look enormous with some tiny girl's hands around their dick, then they grab their own cock and presto it looks half the size.

I do think many women just measure a dick by how it makes them feel, and it's often just a post-hoc sort of thing. If the guy was lousy in bed and had a smaller-sized penis, then he was too small. If he sucked and had a bigger dick, then he was too big. Not saying size doesn't influence things, just that few people are going in to sex saying "this guy was 6.5"BPEL and he was 20% better than the guy who was 6.0"BPEL, so I'll plot this distribution up on a bell-curve to show the ideal measurement."

Actually we look pretty similar in shape (apart from my pronounced curve) + build (cyclist here too), but you're definitely an amazing photographer, while photography has always been my Achilles heel. My shots are awful even by iPhone standards :p. I think it really illustrates that presentation is way more important than raw numbers. You pull an unwashed, pock-marked thing out of a ratty pair of stretched-out boxers, and you're not convincing anyone how amazing your dick is because of where it fits in with a statistical distribution.

I don't know what other stats you're claiming, but I am jealous of the 9% body fat one. I used to be around 30%, and am now down to a healthy 15%, but I guess I have to accept I'll never be that lean.
 

duderino

Superior Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Posts
594
Media
118
Likes
7,776
Points
498
Location
New York City (New York, United States)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
The size of the imager will necessarily have an effect on the focal length; film primes are EXPENSIVE because a super35 frame is much smaller than a 35mm still frame - to get an equivalent wide angle you need a much wider lens. You sound like more of an expert on this than I, but you do have a point that your aperture isn't necessarily a required figure IF you have other reference points to go on. For someone who works with images professionally, it has less of an effect, as you're not as prone to the perceptual trickery our brains play when you take - say - my (favorite lens) 24mm 1.4 L and frame your subject up-close, shooting wide open to get a bokeh AND barrel distortion. It's wickedly cool for a "look" but rather easily mistaken by the untrained eye.

Yes, you're only affecting your DoF and your depth of focus, but... mixing the creamy background we associate with a portrait (usually shot medium tele - say 85mm) with the distortion an extra-wide 24mm provides, literally pulling the subject out of the frame... well, that's the whole point of that shot. It's dramatic because you don't know why it's dramatic... unless you are you, or me.

So, yeah, I was most certainly throwing in everything I could think of that might affect an image admittedly in an attempt to add some cred to my point. Kinda like the "How to Win an Argument" leaflet my freshman advisor gave us: Use phrases like "ad hoc prompter hoc" which means "I speak Latin, and you don't."

So, yeah, I agree. But I think your final sentence pretty much sums it up.

And thank you for reading - and paying attention and taking the time to call me on my bullshit; I mean it - you make an excellent point.

Dude- Would you please explain how the "aperture at time of exposure" could have any bearing at all on an object's apparent size in a photo? I devoted a large part of my career to optics and technical photography and I can assure you that, other than absolute exposure, the f-stop (aperture) will only effect depth of field, so either objects in the image are in focus or they are not. If the focus is so bad as to affect analysis (as a good many on this site are) the image should just be discarded as invalid.
 

ShannonH

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Posts
1,324
Media
11
Likes
373
Points
228
Location
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
I intentionally never stated my measurements but they are (and this not me measuring myself - it's with the help of two separate GFs about ten years apart): max out at 9.5 x 7+ (that last one is tough to get accurately - it's always thickest before orgasm and that's an inopportune time to measure;

I guess since it's the name of the thread, the natural next question is: is that bone-pressed or not? :)

I know what you mean with the girth thing. I feel like the older I get the more variable mine becomes. With just a standard erection I'm solidly 5.5" around, but can get past 6 when I really get going. No way to get that excited while measuring myself though. I get way thicker when I'm turned on for a long period of time without release (e.g. I wake up a few hours before my girlfriend but am ready to go the whole time.)
 

Infernal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Posts
3,566
Media
7
Likes
5,140
Points
593
Age
54
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It's all a matter of perspective and perception.

In my own experience - I was chatting with a guy and when it came to the numbers he said he was above average at 7 inches. I'm a comfortable 6.5 and totally fine with it. The guys shows up and when we're standing there, dick to dick, he's shorter than I am. I know where my 6.5 inches fits in my hand, and when I'm down at face level, he was barely 6. I asked him how he measured and he said he stuck the ruler in as far as it would go, and measured to the tip. His perception was that he's 7 inches, but from my perspective, he wasn't. The encounter was a disaster due to his attitude, not his cock size. A little technique would have made a world of difference, but all he had going was an overblown alpha dog attitude and that didn't work for me.