BDA to Phinigel - Page 185

Kushie · #**1841** 07-22-2016, 04:34 PM

My big balls make up for my small dick.

big_ole_jpn · #**1842** 07-22-2016, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My big balls make up for my small dick.

this has set me a-ruminating on a new standard for Metric Dick Measuring.

I propose that a new measurement, Total Genital Volume, be implemented to quantify what you state here. By dipping an erect penis and swollen balls separately into a measuring device of sufficient volume and taking the measurement of each we could put to rest contests of genital size in which the two contenders have varying ratios of penile length to nutsac.

Because penis size is more relevant to most common forms of intercourse than the size of nutsac, I propose a Nutsac Volume Coefficient of .7 to adjust for the lower impact of nutsac volume. The calculations would be simple:

Code:

(Penile Volume Displacement) + [(Nutsac Volume Coefficient)*(Nutsac Volume Displacement)] = Total Genital Volume

If anyone has any ideas on this, particularly a means to quantify the value of the Nutsac Volume Coefficient rather than defining it arbitrarily, I would be very grateful to hear your thoughts.

Kushie · #**1843** 07-22-2016, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this has set me a-ruminating on a new standard for Metric Dick Measuring.

I propose that a new measurement, Total Genital Volume, be implemented to quantify what you state here. By dipping an erect penis and swollen balls separately into a measuring device of sufficient volume and taking the measurement of each we could put to rest contests of genital size in which the two contenders have varying ratios of penile length to nutsac.

Because penis size is more relevant to most common forms of intercourse than the size of nutsac, I propose a Nutsac Volume Coefficient of .7 to adjust for the lower impact of nutsac volume. The calculations would be simple:

Code:

(Penile Volume Displacement) + [(Nutsac Volume Coefficient)*(Nutsac Volume Displacement)] = Total Genital Volume

If anyone has any ideas on this, particularly a means to quantify the value of the Nutsac Volume Coefficient rather than defining it arbitrarily, I would be very grateful to hear your thoughts.

Where is your evidence that penis size is more relevant to intercourse? My huge balls sometimes take precedent. Total Genital Volume should be a 1:1 ratio imho.

maskedmelon · #**1844** 07-22-2016, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where is your evidence that penis size is more relevant to intercourse? My huge balls sometimes take precedent. Total Genital Volume should be a 1:1 ratio imho.

I think there are other more relevant considerations tbh, such as prominence and elasticity of foreskin. It works as a natural gasket to mitigate loss of lubricant (natural or synthetic) and becomes increasingly important with prolonged activity. No idea how you'd measure that though.

AzzarTheGod · #**1845** 07-22-2016, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think there are other more relevant considerations tbh, such as prominence and elasticity of foreskin. It works as a natural gasket to mitigate loss of lubricant (natural or synthetic) and becomes increasingly important with prolonged activity. No idea how you'd measure that though.

Extremely tight cut here. Have considered doing restoration exercises but its extremely boring. One of these days I will start taking it serious as the cut is just way too tight, and as you said, comes with huge negatives.