Size Chart
- Thread starterste1
- Start date
Hmmm, I think the 'real man' size is the bare minium actually. prefer larger...but you need one for width too as that is far, far, far more important to me than length. especially as the more i do this, for some reason the wider and wider i need the guy to be...hmm, wonder why?
Um... I have a question...
Ms. Pespearfish and/or Carina,
Regarding:
What are the units on the "dickometer" scale? Centimeters? Half-inches? Inches? There are no units on the "ruler," nor is that seemingly-critical info provided at the link provided by Corina.
—Custer
Ms. Pespearfish and/or Carina,
Regarding:
What are the units on the "dickometer" scale? Centimeters? Half-inches? Inches? There are no units on the "ruler," nor is that seemingly-critical info provided at the link provided by Corina.
—Custer
i was just eyeballing the penis provided and thinking it looking of "normal" size and then just adjusted up accordingly. i can provide units as i dont go around with a ruler for every penis i play with....i eyeball them, hold them, suck them, lick them and hopefully sit on them!!! rulers and penises are for sissy cucks i think just to measure inadequacy.
On further consideration...
Hi Ms. Pespearfish,
Thank you for your reply.
For your contemplative pleasure, I have considered your initial important comment further. (I revised it slightly in the following "quote," since cock circumference* is much easier for "the average concerned, discerning woman on the street" to measure, using the tape measure she carries in her purse, than cock width [which might require calipers, a much less common instrument].)
*The width/circumference conversion is easily made by approximating men's cocks as cylinders and using a standard formula of circle geometry.
circumference = (diameter)(pi)
(cock width) = ~(cock diameter) = (cock circumference) / (pi) , where pi = 3.14.
Example: Suppose, Ms. Pespearfish, you require each candidate lover to demonstrate (in public if necessary, or on a bar stool, or in the passenger seat of your car) that his erect cock has a minimum circumference of 6 inches, as measured by you with your purse tape measure, before you take him seriously. If it's less, you verbally berate him and scornfully send him packing. Then:
Your candidate's minimum required cock diameter = his cock width = (6 inches) / (3.14) = 1.9 = 1 7/8 inches. Voila! You now also know your minimum required cock width.
Alternatively, suppose you know the required minimum erect cock width of your candidate lovers is 2 inches before you can take them seriously. Then, their required more-easily-measured erect cock circumference is (2 inches)(pi) = 6.3 inches = 6 5/16 inches. Voila! You now know how your required cock width translates into circumference which, as noted above, is most-easily measured by you while your candidate sits in the passenger seat of your car.
—Custer
Hi Ms. Pespearfish,
Thank you for your reply.
For your contemplative pleasure, I have considered your initial important comment further. (I revised it slightly in the following "quote," since cock circumference* is much easier for "the average concerned, discerning woman on the street" to measure, using the tape measure she carries in her purse, than cock width [which might require calipers, a much less common instrument].)
*The width/circumference conversion is easily made by approximating men's cocks as cylinders and using a standard formula of circle geometry.
circumference = (diameter)(pi)
(cock width) = ~(cock diameter) = (cock circumference) / (pi) , where pi = 3.14.
Example: Suppose, Ms. Pespearfish, you require each candidate lover to demonstrate (in public if necessary, or on a bar stool, or in the passenger seat of your car) that his erect cock has a minimum circumference of 6 inches, as measured by you with your purse tape measure, before you take him seriously. If it's less, you verbally berate him and scornfully send him packing. Then:
Your candidate's minimum required cock diameter = his cock width = (6 inches) / (3.14) = 1.9 = 1 7/8 inches. Voila! You now also know your minimum required cock width.
Alternatively, suppose you know the required minimum erect cock width of your candidate lovers is 2 inches before you can take them seriously. Then, their required more-easily-measured erect cock circumference is (2 inches)(pi) = 6.3 inches = 6 5/16 inches. Voila! You now know how your required cock width translates into circumference which, as noted above, is most-easily measured by you while your candidate sits in the passenger seat of your car.
—Custer
Ms. Pespearfish,
Ah... I see. That's certainly a reasonable and logical estimation method... probably the best, under the circumstances.
WHAT?! Really...? You don't even carry a purse tape measure for that purpose? I thought every woman did that...
Well, that's certainly the most direct approach. I must say, I find your practical and pragmatic view of this problem admirable.
Yes, I suppose you're right. Sigh...
—Custer
Ah... I see. That's certainly a reasonable and logical estimation method... probably the best, under the circumstances.
WHAT?! Really...? You don't even carry a purse tape measure for that purpose? I thought every woman did that...
Well, that's certainly the most direct approach. I must say, I find your practical and pragmatic view of this problem admirable.
Yes, I suppose you're right. Sigh...
—Custer
custer: you are a witty and funny fella!
To Custer
O K now let's get real!!
One could argue that normally men's penis' are not perfectly round (or conical) but rather wider measured horizontally than vertically. Therefore circumference is an inaccurate value to determine diamater.
Therefore, I like mrs. Pespearfish's more practical use of her own internal tactile pressure and 'cunt resistance to determine if a 'cock' is of the proper satisfaction for her.
Undoubtably, other women will have a different value that is suitable for each. But won't it be a lot of fun to try them each before deciding.
On the other hand, isn't it amusing what we turn to while we are waiting for an 'update' from 'Lexi' and from 'STB'
Cheers, Harry
O K now let's get real!!
One could argue that normally men's penis' are not perfectly round (or conical) but rather wider measured horizontally than vertically. Therefore circumference is an inaccurate value to determine diamater.
Therefore, I like mrs. Pespearfish's more practical use of her own internal tactile pressure and 'cunt resistance to determine if a 'cock' is of the proper satisfaction for her.
Undoubtably, other women will have a different value that is suitable for each. But won't it be a lot of fun to try them each before deciding.
On the other hand, isn't it amusing what we turn to while we are waiting for an 'update' from 'Lexi' and from 'STB'
Cheers, Harry
Hi Madam Pespearfish,
Thank you Ma'am. I am most honored that you are pleased with my humble attempt to amuse you... while at the same time suggesting a simple and practical method you can perhaps employ, Ma'am, in your evaluations of your supplicant potential lovers should you choose to do so.
—custer
Thank you Ma'am. I am most honored that you are pleased with my humble attempt to amuse you... while at the same time suggesting a simple and practical method you can perhaps employ, Ma'am, in your evaluations of your supplicant potential lovers should you choose to do so.
—custer
Yes, you have it right.
Excellent! You've mastered the formula. You get an A. (I downgraded you from an A+, however, because you should have said: "... then the circumference IS: ... etc ... 6.28 inches.")
or i have a more basic approach: me likey them big!
Harry,
Hey, c'mon...
Indeed a discriminating cuckoldress could, as you say, make this argument. Men's cocks are, in reality, better approximated as elliptical in cross section with larger semi-major axis in the horizontal direction and smaller semi-minor axis in the vertical direction. The relevant formula is:
circumference = (2pi)[(1/2)(a^2 + b^2)]^(1/2)
where pi = 3.14 (as noted previously), a is the semimajor axis, b is the semiminor axis, ^2 means squared, and [ ... ]^(1/2) means take the square root of the quantity in brackets. See, for instance:
Approximate Circumference of an Ellipse - Geometry - CalcEnstein
Now, since there are two quantities to be measured, the question comes to mind whether it might be possible to simplify this formula to make it more appealing to women who are discerning aficionados of cock size, such as Madam Pespearfish. Such women, of course, are busy so they are intolerant of overly complicated "potential lover evaluation" procedures.
I propose the following simplification in which you, Harry, can play a pivotal role by determining the "elliptical flattening" of your erect weenie cross-section. Here is the procedure.
1. Assume the "elliptical flattening" of your own erect weenie cross-section is typical of men's cocks in general, regardless of circumference variations.
2. Obtain a pair of calipers (we don't want any crude approximations here) and a ruler that includes a centimeter and millimeter scale (forget about trying to do calculations using the U.S. medieval unit system).
3. Politely ask your wife to assist you. If she refuses, mention you'll have to advertise online for a suitably-attractive young woman in your local area to assist you. This should suffice to secure her cooperation, although she may grumble.
4. Take off your clothes... all of them... in front of your wife.
5. Get it up. If this is a problem, politely ask your wife to assist you.
6. Using your calipers and your cm/mm ruler, instruct your wife to measure the horizontal thickness (twice the semiminor axis "a") of your weenie and write down the number. If your wife snickers or laughs loudly, sternly remind her of the seriousness of this enterprise. Repeat this measurement at least twice.
7. Repeat "4" vertically, thereby determining twice the semiminor axis "b" of your weenie.
8. Politely ask your wife if you may put your clothes back on. If your wife likes CFNM and orders you to remain nude then, of course, remain nude. In either case, if you have managed to keep it up throughout these measurements, politely mention to your wife that you'd appreciate it if she would give you a reward.
9. Using a hand calculator, calculate the flattening of the ellipse that represents your erect weenie cross-section, using:
f = (a − b)/a = (2a - 2b)/2a , where 2a and 2b are the horizontal and vertical thicknesses, respectively, of your weenie as noted above. I.e., ellipse flattening is the difference between the horizontal and vertical thicknesses of your weenie, divided by the horizontal thickness of your weenie.
Now, assume the flattening of the ellipse that represents your weenie cross-section is about the same as the elliptical flattening of men's cocks in general. In other words f, once determined, remains a constant for all time, sort of like the constant in Newton's law of gravitation.
Re-arranging, we obtain:
(2a)(f) = 2a - 2b . Re-arranging again,
2b = 2a - (2a)(f) = 2a - 2af = 2(a - af) .
Canceling the 2's and factoring out "a":
b = (a-af) = a(1 - f) .
Now, substitute "a(1 - f)" for "b" in the formula for the circumference of your weenie ellipse, that being:
circumference = (2pi)[(1/2)(a^2 + b^2)]^(1/2) .
10. We obtain:
circumference = (2pi){(1/2)[a^2 + (a(1-f))^2]}^(1/2)
11. Finally, evaluate the improvement the formula in "10" yields by comparing the value it yields to the circumference value you obtain by approximating your erect weenie cross-section as a circle, as suggested in my previous post.
where "a" is the horizontal thickness of ANY man's cock, (...)^2 means (...) squared, {...}^(1/2) means the square root of the whole quantity {...}, and f is "cock ellipse" flattening, assumed constant for all men*, as determined by YOU, Harry.
Voila! We have a more-realistic universally-applicable formula in which women who are discerning cock aficionado's, like Madam Pespearfish, need measure only ONE variable, the horizontal thickness of their candidate lover's cocks. They will have to carry calipers and a small half-length centimeter/millimeter ruler in their handbags, but for the serious cuckoldress-on-the-go with limited tolerance for delay, this should be a minor inconvenience.
If an efficiency-minded cuckoldress (Madam Pespearfish, for instance) wished to save even more time, she could purchase a programmable calculator and program-in the above formula. Then, she need only enter the horizontal thickness of a candidate's erect cock (as he sits, say, in the passenger seat of her car with his pants down), enter it, press one button (to start her program), and PRESTO! Her candidate's cock circumference would appear on her calculator screen.
—Custer
*I encourage all others on this forum who wish to determine the "elliptical cross-section flattening f" of their erect weenies or cocks (as the case may be) to do so. The results can then be tabulated and averaged to obtain a more universally-applicable value for "f."
Hey, c'mon...
Indeed a discriminating cuckoldress could, as you say, make this argument. Men's cocks are, in reality, better approximated as elliptical in cross section with larger semi-major axis in the horizontal direction and smaller semi-minor axis in the vertical direction. The relevant formula is:
circumference = (2pi)[(1/2)(a^2 + b^2)]^(1/2)
where pi = 3.14 (as noted previously), a is the semimajor axis, b is the semiminor axis, ^2 means squared, and [ ... ]^(1/2) means take the square root of the quantity in brackets. See, for instance:
Approximate Circumference of an Ellipse - Geometry - CalcEnstein
Now, since there are two quantities to be measured, the question comes to mind whether it might be possible to simplify this formula to make it more appealing to women who are discerning aficionados of cock size, such as Madam Pespearfish. Such women, of course, are busy so they are intolerant of overly complicated "potential lover evaluation" procedures.
I propose the following simplification in which you, Harry, can play a pivotal role by determining the "elliptical flattening" of your erect weenie cross-section. Here is the procedure.
1. Assume the "elliptical flattening" of your own erect weenie cross-section is typical of men's cocks in general, regardless of circumference variations.
2. Obtain a pair of calipers (we don't want any crude approximations here) and a ruler that includes a centimeter and millimeter scale (forget about trying to do calculations using the U.S. medieval unit system).
3. Politely ask your wife to assist you. If she refuses, mention you'll have to advertise online for a suitably-attractive young woman in your local area to assist you. This should suffice to secure her cooperation, although she may grumble.
4. Take off your clothes... all of them... in front of your wife.
5. Get it up. If this is a problem, politely ask your wife to assist you.
6. Using your calipers and your cm/mm ruler, instruct your wife to measure the horizontal thickness (twice the semiminor axis "a") of your weenie and write down the number. If your wife snickers or laughs loudly, sternly remind her of the seriousness of this enterprise. Repeat this measurement at least twice.
7. Repeat "4" vertically, thereby determining twice the semiminor axis "b" of your weenie.
8. Politely ask your wife if you may put your clothes back on. If your wife likes CFNM and orders you to remain nude then, of course, remain nude. In either case, if you have managed to keep it up throughout these measurements, politely mention to your wife that you'd appreciate it if she would give you a reward.
9. Using a hand calculator, calculate the flattening of the ellipse that represents your erect weenie cross-section, using:
f = (a − b)/a = (2a - 2b)/2a , where 2a and 2b are the horizontal and vertical thicknesses, respectively, of your weenie as noted above. I.e., ellipse flattening is the difference between the horizontal and vertical thicknesses of your weenie, divided by the horizontal thickness of your weenie.
Now, assume the flattening of the ellipse that represents your weenie cross-section is about the same as the elliptical flattening of men's cocks in general. In other words f, once determined, remains a constant for all time, sort of like the constant in Newton's law of gravitation.
Re-arranging, we obtain:
(2a)(f) = 2a - 2b . Re-arranging again,
2b = 2a - (2a)(f) = 2a - 2af = 2(a - af) .
Canceling the 2's and factoring out "a":
b = (a-af) = a(1 - f) .
Now, substitute "a(1 - f)" for "b" in the formula for the circumference of your weenie ellipse, that being:
circumference = (2pi)[(1/2)(a^2 + b^2)]^(1/2) .
10. We obtain:
circumference = (2pi){(1/2)[a^2 + (a(1-f))^2]}^(1/2)
11. Finally, evaluate the improvement the formula in "10" yields by comparing the value it yields to the circumference value you obtain by approximating your erect weenie cross-section as a circle, as suggested in my previous post.
where "a" is the horizontal thickness of ANY man's cock, (...)^2 means (...) squared, {...}^(1/2) means the square root of the whole quantity {...}, and f is "cock ellipse" flattening, assumed constant for all men*, as determined by YOU, Harry.
Voila! We have a more-realistic universally-applicable formula in which women who are discerning cock aficionado's, like Madam Pespearfish, need measure only ONE variable, the horizontal thickness of their candidate lover's cocks. They will have to carry calipers and a small half-length centimeter/millimeter ruler in their handbags, but for the serious cuckoldress-on-the-go with limited tolerance for delay, this should be a minor inconvenience.
If an efficiency-minded cuckoldress (Madam Pespearfish, for instance) wished to save even more time, she could purchase a programmable calculator and program-in the above formula. Then, she need only enter the horizontal thickness of a candidate's erect cock (as he sits, say, in the passenger seat of her car with his pants down), enter it, press one button (to start her program), and PRESTO! Her candidate's cock circumference would appear on her calculator screen.
—Custer
*I encourage all others on this forum who wish to determine the "elliptical cross-section flattening f" of their erect weenies or cocks (as the case may be) to do so. The results can then be tabulated and averaged to obtain a more universally-applicable value for "f."
D
duke9555
Guest
Attachments
A check and a comparison...
Duke,
Thank you. The reasonably-skeptical hotwife-on-the-go (such as Madam Pespearfish, for example) should, however, expect verification that the elliptical cock circumference formula simplified such that it requires only one variable as input; that is, "a" = (cock width)/2 (where cock width is as measured with her purse calipers and ruler) yields the same elliptical circumference as the standard ellipse formula that includes 2 variables, "a" and "b", which was the starting point. (We assume "f" will be known when Harry informs us of the result of his weenie analysis.)
Pending Harry's result, assume arbitrarily that (horizontal cock width) / 2 = a = 1.0 inch and (vertical cock width) / 2 = b = 0.75 inch. Then, flattening f = 0.25 . Plugging f = 0.25 and a = 1.0 into the equation of step 10, above, and turning the crank yields
Elliptical cock circumference = 5.55 inches.
Now, we plug "a" = 1.0 inch and "b" = 0.75 inches into the standard ellipse circumference formula that was the starting point, and which does not require f explicitly. Again turning the crank yields
Elliptical cock circumference = 5.55 inches.
Thus, a "skeptical hotwife on the go" can be confident the "1 variable" formula given in step 10, above, is correct.
Now, for comparison, consider the circumference obtained if one approximates cock cross-section as a circle with 2 inch diameter. Using circumference = (pi)(diameter), we obtain
Circular cock circumference = 6.28 inches
(as obtained by Mac, above, for the case of a 2 inch diameter circular-cross-section cock).
Beyond checking the "a and f only" version of the elliptical cock formula, this comparison exercise shows that for a given horizontal cock width, more-realistic approximation of the cock cross-section as an ellipse means the corresponding cock circumference is smaller than the apparent implied circumference if the cock cross-section is approximated as a circle. How much smaller depends, of course, on the value of "f" which is TBD.
—Custer
Duke,
Thank you. The reasonably-skeptical hotwife-on-the-go (such as Madam Pespearfish, for example) should, however, expect verification that the elliptical cock circumference formula simplified such that it requires only one variable as input; that is, "a" = (cock width)/2 (where cock width is as measured with her purse calipers and ruler) yields the same elliptical circumference as the standard ellipse formula that includes 2 variables, "a" and "b", which was the starting point. (We assume "f" will be known when Harry informs us of the result of his weenie analysis.)
Pending Harry's result, assume arbitrarily that (horizontal cock width) / 2 = a = 1.0 inch and (vertical cock width) / 2 = b = 0.75 inch. Then, flattening f = 0.25 . Plugging f = 0.25 and a = 1.0 into the equation of step 10, above, and turning the crank yields
Elliptical cock circumference = 5.55 inches.
Now, we plug "a" = 1.0 inch and "b" = 0.75 inches into the standard ellipse circumference formula that was the starting point, and which does not require f explicitly. Again turning the crank yields
Elliptical cock circumference = 5.55 inches.
Thus, a "skeptical hotwife on the go" can be confident the "1 variable" formula given in step 10, above, is correct.
Now, for comparison, consider the circumference obtained if one approximates cock cross-section as a circle with 2 inch diameter. Using circumference = (pi)(diameter), we obtain
Circular cock circumference = 6.28 inches
(as obtained by Mac, above, for the case of a 2 inch diameter circular-cross-section cock).
Beyond checking the "a and f only" version of the elliptical cock formula, this comparison exercise shows that for a given horizontal cock width, more-realistic approximation of the cock cross-section as an ellipse means the corresponding cock circumference is smaller than the apparent implied circumference if the cock cross-section is approximated as a circle. How much smaller depends, of course, on the value of "f" which is TBD.
—Custer
Thank you Custer - that had me laughing out loud 
Those maths lessons certainly stuck with you didn't they?
Those maths lessons certainly stuck with you didn't they?Oh-oh... can it be a stern reprimand from S_zip99 is next...?
I'm thinking that you have even MORE time than me (and that's a lot right now) to waste on unappreciated brilliance. —Mac
Sigh...
Thank you Custer - that had me laughing out loud
You're welcome. (Some things, if you do them enough over the years, are hard to forget... )