Whenever I fuck, it is always through a hole in the wall. It really allows us to be close together.![]()
LOL.
Whenever I fuck, it is always through a hole in the wall. It really allows us to be close together.![]()
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:
My wife can feel the extra 3/4. When I grind it in I hit her cds.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]
... (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.) ...
.. Just an honest question. I'm curious.
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...
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. 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.
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.
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;
@duderino you are not 9.5 x 7+ !!D
At 5' "10" and 165, he looks to be about 8x6 to me, maybe 6.25.looks mighty close to me... no one ever takes into accout their height/weight and muscle size that add or detract from pics. Especially those without picsJust sayin...