Expressive Stretching

[QUOTE=doublelongdaddy][b]DLD's Expressive Stretches[/b]
Idea's have been going through my mind over the past few days mostly related to the [URL=http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17151]THIS THREAD[/URL] where an excellent discussion on ligament stretching is in progress. I also saw a relationship between that discussion and a post that I made in the porno section of Mandingo. The user Prince Albert stated something to the effect of "You can see were his shaft has a bulge then gets thicker near the base,do you think that is how much he has gained from pe." [URL=http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17051]Refer to This Thread[/URL]. I included a close up of the picture Prince Albert was referring to.

Just like many of you, Mandingo's size has always caused me to wonder if he PE's, but there is something even more remarkable than his size, something unique about his penis shape that got me interested in pursuing this type of stretching exercises. The combination of the ligament thread and the Mandingo pictures inspired me to create this stretching position and the exercises that surround it.

Starting with this quote by Bib:

[i][b][color=blue]In most guys, there are actually three portions of shaft that make up the entire erection:

The bulbs of the root to the bottom of the pubic bone.

The bottom of the pubic bone up the face of the pubic bone then exiting the skin.

The exit point to the tip.

All of these areas may express gains through PE. Stretching the ligs to express gains through PE come in the middle part, from the bottom of the pubic bone to the exit point. As the ligs are stretched, pulling the shaft down and out, this portion is expressed as new outer penis.

The only guys who cannot realize gains from this portion are those whose exit point is already close to the bottom of the pubic bone, a very low LOT.

With any guy, gains can be made by stretching the tunica in all three areas, as long as the proper stretching angles are used. If a guy has high tight ligs, some lig stretching at the lower angles may have to occur in order for the stress of stretching at the higher angles to reach the inner penis.

When some of the portion behind the pubic bone is stretched/grown, then more lig stretch may express more of that portion as outer penis. See-saw effect.[/i][/b][/color]

Having a general understanding of Bib's quote will allow you to look at the picture this Mandingo in a different light.

[img]http://www.sunraiseinc.com/mandingo.jpg[/img]

Typically the visible penis, when erect, is the portion Bib explains as the exit point to the tip. All other internal structures remain just that, internal. Just like me, I am sure you have pushed your fat pad back to expose some internal penis...for some of us this is good for another 2 inches of exposed penis after pushing the fat pad back. Mandingo is much different though, it is almost like he has the opposite of a fat pad but after studying his penis and the information that was posted in the ligament thread I speculate that it is much deeper than that. It seems that he has successfully extended his penis to permanently expose much of the internal penis. But how? Current penis enlargement, length exercise primarily focuses on lig and tunica lengthening. I understand this does affect the internal structures and to some extent "express" some of that internal penis but looking at Mandingo's penis there is something else going on. Notice the exit point of his penis, notice the placement of his scrotum, notice where his actual shaft starts to straighten out...it seems that a huge portion of his internal structures are now expressed whether it was through PE or natural selection there is no ignoring this. I have highlighted areas of his penis that appear to be expressed beyond the "normal" external penis.

I have also redrawn the Grey's Penile Anatomy Picture to show the penis in it's erect state. I am hoping this will help put many of these parts together. This is a comment Bib made on Modesto's Model:

[i][b][color=blue]The greatest problem with his model is that he only considers two straight lines for the inner penis and outer penis. For purposes of LOT, there are actually three portions, two straight, and one curved.[/i][/b][/color]
(Read Modesto's Model at Bottom of this thread)

[img]http://www.sunraiseinc.com/antomy.jpg[/img]

This gives us a further clue to Mandingo's penis, another step towards understanding his size and shape.

As many of you know I am much better at creating exercise than discussing theory, I am sure there will be allot of that so let me get to the exercise and my experience with it so far.

These group of exercises are done using the [URL=http://www.mattersofsize.com/Power_Assist.html]POWER ASSIST[/URL] , I developed them using the above information. I only illustrate one as I need to shoot video and draw the additional exercises but I can tell you that this type of stretching is like NOTHING you have tried before. They can be done seated or standing. First I bring my flaccid penis and scrotum through the Power Assist Hole (take you time as it will take some practice.) Once through the hole you can start a variety of stretches. Grabbing the entire scrotum and penis I stretch downward while I press the Power Assist against my body and upward. My goal with the Power Assist it to expose as much of the internal penis as possible while the other hand stretches what I successfully expose. Since the scrotum is through the Power Assist it allow me to express and train the bulb of the penis, the ligaments, Crus and other "virgin" internal penis. The possibilities or should I say potential of this type of stretching is incredible as it allows us to train areas of the penis we have never trained before, at least directly. The stretches can vary, as you will see, to include two handed stretches, upward, downward, left, right among many others. One I got into the correct position I felt like I just started PE, it felt incredible. The soreness I get (good soreness) exceeds the soreness I felt as a newbie. Even hours after my workout I feel extreme fatigue and definite sign of growth potential.

[img]http://www.sunraiseinc.com/Stretch.jpg[/img]

[size=4][b]If we are able to expose this part of the internal penis then we can stretch it, plain and simple.[/b][/size]

I will rush to get new video's shot on the variety of applications for this stretching position. I hope my thread explains what is in my mind. Please ask any question or comments. I have not been this excited about penis enlargement since DLD Blasters and Squash Jelqs.

[size=1][b]MODESO's MODEL[/b]

The purpose of this thread is to test LOT Theory using the LOT Simulator.

I have always been confused by LOT theory. Gradually. I came to accept it as plausible, and I even counseled others to hang in accordance with predictions grounded in that theory.

Nevertheless, there has always been doubt. I couldn't quite put my finger on the problem. So, when knowledgeable guys like WestLA90069 started challenging the theory in this thread, I decided to dig in and see whether I could learn something.

The result of my effort was the LOT Simulator. This program was designed to explore the physical mechanisms involved in LOT. I hoped that, by modeling the penis in relation to the structures to which it is attached, I could learn what really caused LOT. This would certainly shed some light on the validity of LOT Theory.

LIMITATIONS OF THE SIMULATOR

Before testing LOT Theory with the simulator, it is necessary first to acknowledge that the simulator is limited. Here is a list of the known limitations of the model. No doubt there are others.
1. Three-dimensional structures of the body are represented as one-dimensional lines.
2. The ligaments are represented as a single line, whereas in fact they consist of many different fibers.
3. The attachment point of the ligaments to the pubic symphysis is represented as a single point, whereas in reality it is a region covering a finite area.
4. The attachment point of the ligaments to the shaft is represented as a single point, whereas in reality it is a region covering a finite area and extending over a finite length.
5. The value of LOT displayed at the top of the graphic is the true zero tugback value. Most people would say that they lose tugback at some small number bigger than zero. Thus, the values of LOT reported are probably slightly lower than those most people would normally report.
At present, I believe that these limitations are not fatal to the model, i.e., they are not so serious as to render the model useless as an investigational tool. Others may disagree. Over time the deficiencies in the model can be corrected. For now, I'll go ahead and draw what conclusions I think are fair. The program is open source, so anyone can take a stab at improving it. When the model is improved, the results reported below can be updated.

TESTING THE THEORY

LOT Theory is actually a collection of four different assertions, which I've drawn from Bib's original post and included below. Each assertion is tested against the simulation.

ASSERTION 1: The shorter, tighter or higher the ligs, the higher the angle required to lose ‘tugback’ when stretching the penis and kegaling at the same time.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Not necessarily true. In particular, it appears that ASSERTION 1 is always true when the length of IP (the inner penis) is greater than the distance between the IR (ischiopubic ramus) and the attachment point on the PS (pubic symphysis). However, ASSERTION 1 is always false when the length of IP is less than the distance between IR and PS.

You can try this for yourself. With Lig attachment set to "High," set the IP length to 105mm. Then, set the lig length to 10, 15, and 20mm. You should see LOT decrease as lig length increases. Now try setting IP to 95mm, and run through the same sequence of lig lengths. Here, you should see LOT actually INCREASING as lig length INCREASES. This is the opposite of ASSERTION 1.

It also appears that LOT does not significantly change with height of the lig attachment to the PS. You can see this by running through the different choices (Low, Middle, and High). It should be noted that, as the attachment point along the PS changes, IP length also changes to retain proper proportions. If IP length were kept fixed for different lig attachment points, larger changes in LOT would be observed. You can experiment with this, as well.


ASSERTION 2. The shorter, tighter, or higher the ligs, the more ‘inner’ penis, and the more quick, easy gains which are possible, and possibly the more total gains which are possible as the ligs are lengthened. The longer, looser, or lower the ligs, the less ‘inner’ penis, and the harder the gains and possibly less total gains which are possible.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Partly true, partly false. It is clear at face value that the length or tightness of the ligaments (as represented in the model) is not relevant to the amount of inner penis. It is rather the attachment point of the ligaments to the shaft which is relevant. This is by definition. The attachment point along the shaft defines which part of the shaft is inner penis and which part is outer penis.

However, the height of the attachment point of the ligaments to the PS does appear to be relevant. This is simply because higher ligs generally coincide with more distal attachment points along the shaft. Again, you can experiment with lig attachment height. Watch what happens to the inner penis and outer penis as you vary this setting between Low, Middle, and High. Set it to Low, and see that the outer penis grows. Set it to high, and see that it shrinks.

It seems reasonable that people with shafts attached high on the PS have more growth potential than those with shafts attached low. By "peeling back" the ligaments along the PS, more shaft can be expressed outside the body, i.e., more IP becomes OP (outer penis).

Whether more highly attached ligaments predict more total gains over time depends on the relative ease of stretching ligs versus tunica. Conventional wisdom is that the ligs are easier to stretch, so this is probably true.


ASSERTION 3: The longer time spent PEing, the lower the angle at which tugback is lost due to a lengthening of the ligs. This assumes PE is performed at lower angles, at least somewhat, by all subjects. The less time spent PEing, the higher the angle at which tugback is lost because ligs have not been stretched.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Inconclusive. The simulation provides a static snapshot. It does not show how changes occur over time (except to the extent they can be represented as successions of static snapshots).


ASSERTION 4: For those with shorter, tighter, or higher ligs, a lengthening of the ligs correlates with a lowering of angle of tugback loss, and an increase in penis length.

SIMULATION SUGGESTS: Inconclusive, for the same reasons as above. The second part of this assertion is partially confirmed, however. If your shaft is attached high on your PS, stretching your ligs to lower this attachment point will reveal more inner penis, and thus will cause your (outer) penis to get longer.


DISCUSSION:
I recently exchanged some emails with Bib, in which we discussed exactly how the ligs stretch. As Bib described, stretching the ligs for most people really consists of "peeling" them back along the PS. The lig bundles closer to the top of the PS stretch, causing those lower down to bear the load from any applied stretching force. All the while, the shaft stays closely adhered to some part of the pubic bone. It is probably unusual for the shaft to pull away entirely from the pubic bone. Bearing this in mind, "stretching the ligs" really means peeling them back. "Long ligs" really means lower attachment points. Lig bundles, once stretched, just kind of hang there and cease to be functional parts of the arrangement. However, the lower ones generally stay nice and tight.

The model represents the ligs as a single line. It is important to realize that this line corresponds to the specific bundles which bear the stress when hanging down. The model does not show other bundles, which have already been stretched and are just "hanging around."

Bib found a negative correlation between LOT and time spent PE'ing at low angles. His data were based on a small sample of experienced hangers. I would like to see more data on this before judging whether this is an actual phenomenon. Some people maintain a high LOT even after many years of PE. Looking at the simulation, I can't immediately see why LOT would change significantly as ligs are stretched or their attachment point to the PS is lowered. Perhaps something else is going on with long-term hangers, which isn't immediately obvious.

Many newbies, who have never stretched their ligs, are reporting some very low LOTs these days. I believe it is unlikely that these guys already have long ligs. More likely, they're either measuring wrong or their ligs attach to their shaft more proximally (closer inside the body) than guys with higher LOTs. If this is the case, I would think that initial LOT has little or nothing to do with potential gains.

The parameter that seems to affect LOT the most is IP length. Small changes in IP length cause large changes in LOT. This suggests that LOT is primarily a function of where along the shaft the ligaments attach. If they attach further out, your LOT will be higher; if they attach closer in, it will be lower.

CONCLUSIONS:

The simulator confirms certain aspects of LOT Theory at the same time that it casts doubt on others.

The simulation confirms that people whose shafts are attached high on their pubic bones have "lig potential." These people can possibly gain relatively quickly by stretching downwardly.

At the same time, the simulator cast doubt on whether LOT has anything to do with lig length, or even with lig attachment point along the pubic symphysis.

Therefore, the simulator casts doubt on whether one's LOT can be used as an indicator of lig potential. Having a low LOT does not necessarily mean one has low lig potential. Having a high LOT does not necessarily mean one has high lig potential. The two things appear to have nothing to do with each other.

It is still possible that LOT Theory is correct. However, I certainly don't believe that all of its assertions are intuitively obvious. Except where noted, LOT Theory no longer immediately strikes me as valid. If the theory is correct, it is because something subtle is going on that the model does not take into account.[/size][/QUOTE]