Size Chart

[Custer Laststand]

Back to Madam Pespearfish...

Hi Madam Pespearfish,

Or, [you might consider my] more basic approach: me likey them big!

Thank you for setting me straight by informing me of your straightforward approach to evaluating the suitability of your candidate lovers. While I feel that technological advances in hotwife methodology for evaluating men's cocks are always... well, almost always... a good thing, it's impossible not to be impressed by the elegance of your approach.

If I may ask... do you find you are able to make an adequate estimate of a candidate's probable cock size using visual inspection while he's still wearing his pants? That is, during the flirtation phase, do you openly look at his crotch (talking, in essence, to his cock), while your candidate openly looks at your bosom (replying, in essence, to your tits)?

Or alternatively, do you find a more tactile approach is necessary? That is, while flirting in close proximity to your candidate, do you unzip his pants, slip one hand inside and fondle his cock, while both of you make intense eye-contact, thereby obtaining a "direct estimate" of whether he's of suitable size...?

Thank you in advance, Ma'am, for any light you might be willing to shed on your approach to making this important preliminary estimate, in order to know whether it will be worthwhile for you to order your candidate to take off his clothes (later, presumably, in a more suitable setting).

—custer

 

[duke9555]

Hi Madam Pespearfish,



Thank you for setting me straight by informing me of your straightforward approach to evaluating the suitability of your candidate lovers. While I feel that technological advances in hotwife methodology for evaluating men's cocks are always... well, almost always... a good thing, it's impossible not to be impressed by the elegance of your approach.

If I may ask... do you find you are able to make an adequate estimate of a candidate's probable cock size using visual inspection while he's still wearing his pants? That is, during the flirtation phase, do you openly look at his crotch (talking, in essence, to his cock), while your candidate openly looks at your bosom (replying, in essence, to your tits)?

Or alternatively, do you find a more tactile approach is necessary? That is, while flirting in close proximity to your candidate, do you unzip his pants, slip one hand inside and fondle his cock, while both of you make intense eye-contact, thereby obtaining a "direct estimate" of whether he's of suitable size...?

Thank you in advance, Ma'am, for any light you might be willing to shed on your approach to making this important preliminary estimate, in order to know whether it will be worthwhile for you to order your candidate to take off his clothes (later, presumably, in a more suitable setting).

—custer

====================

so thrilled

 

[Custer Laststand]

Mac,

Custer, I didn't realize you were so famous for your masterful mathmatical formulas ... I found this in the archives. I hope you like it. —Mac

Thanks for your compliment and your archive photo representing "me" practicing my supposed profession. I assure you, however, I'm not famous. (One should never overlook, however, the broad applicability of Andy Warhol's well-known statement: "In the future, everyone will be famous... for 15 minutes").

In any case, deriving the above formula that gives "flattened elliptical cock circumference" as a function of only one variable (cock width) plus cock flattening (f... assumed constant, once determined, for all men regardless of cock-size variability) did, in fact, take only the number of steps shown above. Well... actually, it takes far fewer steps, but I included them all for clarity and in case the "average skeptical hotwife on the go"... as forum members are well aware, hotwives are busy women... wants to verify the authenticity of the formula before entering it into her programmable hand calculator for routine use.

Now, while many hotwives (Ms. Perspearfish, for instance) apparently consider cock circumference the most important variable — i.e., they find fat cocks provide maximum stimulation — there may be many, as well, who find some particular combination of length and circumference most stimulating. This they may express (again, like Ms. Perspearfish) by saying "I like them big," or words to that effect.

The word "big," however, is uncomfortably subjective. Thus, I'm sure many mathematically-minded hotwives (no doubt there are more than most cuckolds appreciate) would like a more quantitative means of judging the adequacy of their potential lovers. This, I propose, would be cock volume which, as I'm sure you're well aware, is a function of both cock circumference AND length. The mathematically-minded hotwife could then look seductively into the eyes of her potential fuck sitting (for instance) on the barstool beside her or in the passenger seat of her car and, smiling sweetly, say: "I like large-volume men... certainly at least 'V' cubic inches. What's YOUR volume, sweetiebuns...?" Her lover-in-waiting's answer would then enable her to make a decision re. whether to inform him she's going to fuck him with her pussy (with her on top, of course), or fuck him up the ass with her strapon (if his "V" number is insufficient for her pussy-pleasure).

Unfortunately, if a hotwife simply says "I like large-volume men," this might leave some ambiguity as to whether by this she means large cock volume or large total-body volume (although, of course, those in the know would have no doubt). But to eliminate this ambiguity, hotwives who prefer precise thinking might say: "I like large-volume men with normal BMI" (where "BMI" means, of course, "body mass index," that being the best way of expressing whether an individual has weight appropriate to their height).

Given the apparent desirability of a "cock volume formula," I do not wish to burden the forum with what many might consider a tedious derivation using, say, the "flattened ellipse cross-section formula" and a conical approximation for one's cock head as the starting point.

But, on the other hand, if there is heavy popular demand for such a formula, I could forge ahead and provide a method for coming up with it... the derivation, in other words... leading to, of course, the formula itself. It would actually be quite straightforward, and (you'll be relieved to hear, no doubt) would not require anywhere near the amount of higher math shown in your archive photo.

—Custer

 

[jelous_of_wifes_bf]

Mac,

Thanks for your compliment and your archive photo representing "me" practicing my supposed profession. I assure you, however, I'm not famous. (One should never overlook, however, the broad applicability of Andy Warhol's well-known statement: "In the future, everyone will be famous... for 15 minutes").

In any case, deriving the above formula that gives "flattened elliptical cock circumference" as a function of only one variable (cock width) plus cock flattening (f... assumed constant, once determined, for all men regardless of cock-size variability) did, in fact, take only the number of steps shown above. Well... actually, it takes far fewer steps, but I included them all for clarity and in case the "average skeptical hotwife on the go"... as forum members are well aware, hotwives are busy women... wants to verify the authenticity of the formula before entering it into her programmable hand calculator for routine use.

Now, while many hotwives (Ms. Perspearfish, for instance) apparently consider cock circumference the most important variable — i.e., they find fat cocks provide maximum stimulation — there may be many, as well, who find some particular combination of length and circumference most stimulating. This they may express (again, like Ms. Perspearfish) by saying "I like them big," or words to that effect.

The word "big," however, is uncomfortably subjective. Thus, I'm sure many mathematically-minded hotwives (no doubt there are more than most cuckolds appreciate) would like a more quantitative means of judging the adequacy of their potential lovers. This, I propose, would be cock volume which, as I'm sure you're well aware, is a function of both cock circumference AND length. The mathematically-minded hotwife could then look seductively into the eyes of her potential fuck sitting (for instance) on the barstool beside her or in the passenger seat of her car and, smiling sweetly, say: "I like large-volume men... certainly at least 'V' cubic inches. What's YOUR volume, sweetiebuns...?" Her lover-in-waiting's answer would then enable her to make a decision re. whether to inform him she's going to fuck him with her pussy (with her on top, of course), or fuck him up the ass with her strapon (if his "V" number is insufficient for her pussy-pleasure).

Unfortunately, if a hotwife simply says "I like large-volume men," this might leave some ambiguity as to whether by this she means large cock volume or large total-body volume (although, of course, those in the know would have no doubt). But to eliminate this ambiguity, hotwives who prefer precise thinking might say: "I like large-volume men with normal BMI" (where "BMI" means, of course, "body mass index," that being the best way of expressing whether an individual has weight appropriate to their height).

Given the apparent desirability of a "cock volume formula," I do not wish to burden the forum with what many might consider a tedious derivation using, say, the "flattened ellipse cross-section formula" and a conical approximation for one's cock head as the starting point.

But, on the other hand, if there is heavy popular demand for such a formula, I could forge ahead and provide a method for coming up with it... the derivation, in other words... leading to, of course, the formula itself. It would actually be quite straightforward, and (you'll be relieved to hear, no doubt) would not require anywhere near the amount of higher math shown in your archive photo.

—Custer

Eh?

So big dicks are better right?