The Penis (smooth) Muscle Theory

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

remek, very interesting information! I'm going to have to read the last post over a few times to digest.
This latest point of flaccid vs erect indicators has given me a headache. I'm finding the more I learn the less I know.

So, how do you think this relates to what we have already compiled?

Well, I think it helps further eliminate the myth that the "penis doesn't consist of any muscle."

I'm also wondering if the tunica is actually enlarged due to PE (i.e. made thicker and stronger) opposed to traditional thoughts that it might be made thinner. This quote is what leads me to that belief:

The penis skeletal muscle structures (i.e. tunica) are the tissue that determine the penile shape as well as an essential part in the establishment of a rigid penis.

What do you think?

I really wish we could just get these doctors on the forums. I'm sure they'd find our community useful as much as we would find them useful.

[Iguana Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Iguana]

remek, something I noticed from the PDF anatomy file you attached. Take a look at the illustration I attached from it (I added the red circle and line.) As you quoted from the article it says,

"In the human penis, the skeletal ischiocavernosus muscles, the bulbospongiosus muscles, and their extension as the tunica albuginea"

Notice that the skeletal muscle portion is very prominent at the base but does not extend up into the shaft. It the illustration on the right (in the original pdf file) you can see that the muscles do not extend past the pubic bone. The tunica extends from the muscle just like a ligament. So, it looks like the actual penis shaft contains very little skeletal muscle extending from the base. But the base itself most definitely does. This could very well explain why hanging is reported to increase base girth. Could it be that these two muscles are enlarging to support the added weight? What do you think?

I agree, it would be nice to get some Phd's over here.

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

Yea, that's a good illustration. It really illustrates how the IC and BS muscles transition into the tunica. I'm not sure that these two muscles are actually enlarging (they might be), but traditional belief is that the two muscles are being slightly pulled outwards due to the ligaments being stretched. Meaning, the more the ligaments are stretched, the more inner penis becomes outer penis.

Maybe it's a combination of both? The theory that the inner penis becomes outer penis was an idea Bib proposed. It might make sense that the stress causes the muscles to actually enlarge. . . But presumably other side effects would take place as a result of hanging (i.e. greater stamina control, due to more defined BS and IC muscles).

Either way, I know not every man gets a thicker base due to hanging. Some men actually report a thinner base.

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

It might make sense that the stress causes the muscles to actually enlarge. . . But presumably other side effects would take place as a result of hanging (i.e. greater stamina control, due to more defined BS and IC muscles).

I wanted to add some clarification here, just in case there's any confusion.

What I mean is that if hanging actually exercises these muscles - in the same way Kegels do, or the same way curls exercise the biceps - then the increased strength of these muscles would probably lead to the greater benefits that strong pelvic floor muscles provides. This may indeed happen, and no one recognized it (or just accredited it to Kegels).

I can't say from experience myself, as I haven't done a lot of hanging yet, nor have I noticed a thicker base. What about you, Iguana - Have you noticed a thicker base? If so, did you notice any side effects?

[Iguana Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Iguana]

remek, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I have never did much hanging nor have I noticed a thicker base. From all the anecdotal evidence we have base thickening seems to have a definite correlation to hanging. It could very well be the lengthen of ligaments moving muscle and penis forward. I know Wad reported good base girth gains but he didn't hang. You would have to reason some manual exercises would mimic the force generated from hanging. Whatever the stimulus the results would be similar. You make some really good points. If the BS and IC muscles are indeed strengthened and/or enlarged you would reason there would be other side effects. The contraction of the IC muscle is responsible for an erection (see quote below) and the BS muscle for ejaculation. So, one would think, as you said, these attributes would become more powerful. It would be good to include some hanging/girth based questions on the next survey.

"Activation of the autonomic nerve produces a full erection, that is, filling and trapping of blood in the cavernous bodies. After full erection is achieved, contraction of the ischiocavernosus muscle (from activation of the somatic nerves) compresses the proximal corpora and raises the pressure in the entire corpora well above the systolic blood pressure, resulting in rigid erection. This rigid phase occurs naturally during masturbation or sexual intercourse but can also occur from slight bending of the penis, without muscular action."

Tom F. Lue, MD Male Sexual Dysfunction. Chapter 37. Physiology of Penile Erection. Lange Urology. McGraw-Hill Companies.

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

You know, this thread is starting to remind me of a quote I once read: "Everyone is puzzled, confused, and lost - even the experts. The experts are just one step ahead of the crowd, leading the masses in the dark."

Now, I don't want to go as far as calling us experts by any means. But I do believe you and I have a fair share of anatomical/PE knowledge between the two of us . . . And I'll be damned if we don't find ourselves more puzzled, confused, and lost the deeper we look

I think - and I've thought this ever since I learned about the smooth muscle in the penis - that the real problem is that for one reason or another, the community takes an idea and automatically passes it as fact (such as the penis not consisting of any muscle). It's human nature to hope for the best without any substantial evidence.

To get to the bottom, I suppose we must listen to Yoda: "we must unlearn what we have learned." That little green guy, he always seems to know the right words.

[Iguana Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Iguana]

I had to chuckle a little when I read your post. I think you hit the nail on the head. As I said earlier, "the more I learn, the less I know" and a Jedi I truly want to be. As I mentioned in my PM, TP has a couple really interesting PE theory threads going and it's almost comical to read them. They pretty much just go in circles. And, this is with 2 Dr's chiming in. I think it all boils down to testing what we think we know. Theories are just that, theories. And, if no one puts them to the test, they will always just remain theories.

I believe if we ever want to look at PE from a scientific/medical stand point, we have to do more than just formulate ideas. I know others have formed "test groups" and have had little success with it. I think probably due to lack of consistency across the board and keeping participants involved. It would be nice to be able to take a theory or idea and put it out there to "prove" or "disprove." Take heat for example. We are 99% sure heat aids in stretching. We know this from the results of other non-PE related studies. But, there are guys out there who have gained without it, so we know that is possible. But, wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell newbies, "we tested 20 volunteers with the exact same routine, 10 used heat to warm up, 10 did not. After 6 weeks, the 10 using heat had 25% greater gains than those who did not use heat."

I'm with you. I still see guys replying to newbies with ideas that have pretty much been shot down as inaccurate. Yet they continue to circulate. "Hey man, you need to check your LOT and then start clamping with a piece of jagged metal ." I wonder how many erroneous ideas we as a community are slinging around due to ignorance?

We may never "prove" or "disprove" anything without a shadow of a doubt. Of course any non-professional study we could contrive would not be perfect and maybe not as accurate as scientific clinical trials, but, at the very least the data should point us in the right direction much better than just a theory alone. It looks like it's going to be a long time before the medical community jumps in and helps us out. We're pretty much on our own.

I don't know how practical setting up studies would be. But, I think until we figure out how to accomplish it, we will continue forming theories. But, if that's all we can feasibly do a this point, I think I have a new theory

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

I believe if we ever want to look at PE from a scientific/medical stand point, we have to do more than just formulate ideas. I know others have formed "test groups" and have had little success with it. I think probably due to lack of consistency across the board and keeping participants involved. It would be nice to be able to take a theory or idea and put it out there to "prove" or "disprove." Take heat for example. We are 99% sure heat aids in stretching. We know this from the results of other non-PE related studies. But, there are guys out there who have gained without it, so we know that is possible. But, wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell newbies, "we tested 20 volunteers with the exact same routine, 10 used heat to warm up, 10 did not. After 6 weeks, the 10 using heat had 25% greater gains than those who did not use heat."

I know exactly what you mean. Especially with the LOT theory. The last thing a new guy needs to worry about is his LOT. The first thing he needs to worry about is not going overboard. I put a lot of thought into the LOT theory, and you can check it out at Thunder's in Modesto's thread - we had quite a battle going for a few weeks (it ended in agreement).

Anyway, studies are absolutely necessary. There's no if's and's or but's about it - we need to do some studies, even if they're only via the Internet. My current plan, this thread aside, is to get my book out (I've had this bad boy sitting on my desk for way to long), as I feel it will help a lot of guys who simply don't have the time to search every piece of information.

Sometime after that, get the second PE survey going. There's a lot of unanswered questions that I'm hoping another survey can shed some light on.

Then - and this will only be able to happen with the help of others - do some studies in one form or another.

[Time4aChange Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Time4aChange]

Remek and Iguana,
I seen you two where both talking about the ic muscles and what not at the top of this page. Here are a few photos that actually show the ic muscles are inner penis.

Human Anatomy images
http://www.fleshandbones.com/imageba...957-05-f37.jpg
Human Anatomy images
Human Anatomy images
Human Anatomy Learning Modules



T4aC

[Iguana Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Iguana]

T4aC, thanks for the links. These are really great! Very clear and detailed photos.

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

Iguana: Did you ever make anything of this point?

But where I've been hitting dead end for some time now is this: What about the extreme of option 3 - Same flaccid hang, but dramatic increase in erect size (and increase in hardness)? According to your post (and what I was originally thinking): " #3 means an increase in tunica length but no SM growth (or relaxation.)"

Avocet8 reported he had experienced the same flaccid hang, but a dramatic increase in erect size (and an increase in hardness). He had to exclusively focus on flaccid gains to change the size of his flaccid penis. I find it hard to believe that he both increased hardness and added several inches to his penis size just by increasing the tunica .

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

Thank you for the links, T4aC!

[Time4aChange Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Time4aChange]

No problem fellas, I'm glad I could help or at least answer some questions.

[Iguana Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Iguana]

Iguana: Did you ever make anything of this point?

But where I've been hitting dead end for some time now is this: What about the extreme of option 3 - Same flaccid hang, but dramatic increase in erect size (and increase in hardness)? According to your post (and what I was originally thinking):
Avocet8 reported he had experienced the same flaccid hang, but a dramatic increase in erect size (and an increase in hardness). He had to exclusively focus on flaccid gains to change the size of his flaccid penis. I find it hard to believe that he both increased hardness and added several inches to his penis size just by increasing the tunica.

remek, I read back through this entire thread hoping to find a clue on this. The only thing that might make sense (other than Avocet8 being some kind of anomaly) might be related to elastic composition. Is it possible he had an unusually high elastic threshold in both the tunica and smooth muscle? Maybe he was only scratching his elastic potential which might explain why he kept snapping back to the same flaccid size? A comment from him might support this

"I had a nice dick in those days. 6 x 5.75, not real long but thick and I was pleased with it, except when I was flaccid. I’ve never been a shower. 2 inches was par and I’ve been extremely self-conscious about that since junior high."

I know it's been hypothesized many times that growers have greater elastic potential. I think wad had a good thread on this.

When I get a few minutes I will go back and read Avocet's story in greater detail to look for more clues. I know he was a huge advocate of pumping and made most of his gains with it.

I notice you made some great additions to the summary. I added another paragraph myself. It is looking good.

[remek Founder Find all posts View Profile Close remek]

We only have a few points left.

We're still kind of stuck on this point, unless you have some new ideas: Girth is greater when semi-erect than when erect.

Here's where we left off:

If the length is smaller, I would presume that the tunica is the same size in both states . . . meaning the tunica may still be the limiting factor. If the length is the same as the erect size, and the girth is bigger, then you're most likely right - the tunic can "take" another .25 inches

Great question! I don't think I have ever done a comparison. It was just something I have observed and noted others talking about. This one may be nothing more than a reshaping of the tunica. Measuing both ways should clear this one up.

Any insight on the length size during this phenomenom would take care this point and solidify our reasoning. Do you remember if it was the same, or do you know of anyone who measured in this instance?