Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN

Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

jlf1961 -> Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/18/2017 6:04:14 PM)
Many, many, many years ago when I was but a lad in college, Playboy published and article dealing with the mathematics of sex. (I am attempting to locate an digital copy of the original article. One section of the article dealt with penis size, in which they used math to prove that length was not as important as volume. However, the part of the article that I have issue with (which recently showed up on a science board I use) deals with total distance of travel in the life time of a penis. The values are as follows: x: length of penis y: depth of penetration s: number of strokes per act δ: how many times the man has sex in a year T: average years of sexual activity Now, the formula is ([xy]sδ)T= total distance a man's penis travels in his sexual lifetime. There is a fatal flaw in the math, since it does not account for one simple fact. Now, no matter what value you care to put in for the variables, and do the math, the answer is going to be zero. Because, if you go forward x distance, and backwards x distance, you end up at your starting point, so you did not travel any distance at all. Ah, you say that it is I who is flawed in my reasoning, yet I can prove it to you, and you to yourself. Stand in one spot in any room. put a piece of tape on the floor. Walk forward 3 feet Walk backward 3 feet. Are you not standing over the piece of tape you put on the floor? So, you have not gone any distance at all. a positive number plus a negative number of equal (albeit negative) value is always zero 2+(-2)=0

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/18/2017 8:19:59 PM)
If you back your car in and out of the garage, repeatedly - your mileage eventually adds up to reflects the cumulative "miles" . You never really went anywhere but you put mileage on the odometer. I guess they are just comparing Mini Coupes to sedans to Cadillacs and limousine and trying to decide how many miles each piled up driving in and out of the garage. Maybe they are trying to determine the depreciation value of a penis?

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/18/2017 8:34:19 PM)
Also, strokes appears to have a single value indicating penetration is a stroke, withdrawal isn't accounted for. It also doesn't account for variables such as the depth of individual women's vagina. How many trips around inside the vagina the penis makes before withdrawing as well as off road trips into oral canyons and tight subterranean excursions.

jlf1961 -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/18/2017 8:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance If you back your car in and out of the garage, repeatedly - your mileage eventually adds up to reflects the cumulative "miles" . You never really went anywhere but you put mileage on the odometer. I guess they are just comparing Mini Coupes to sedans to Cadillacs and limousine and trying to decide how many miles each piled up driving in and out of the garage. Maybe they are trying to determine the depreciation value of a penis? Look, the formula as written, will equal zero. For it to actually accumulate any real distance, then there can be no backing up of the object in question. Of course, at this point, there enters another question. If, you do not take into consideration the negative movement of the object, would it be a fair assumption to speculate the mileage on the receptacle? Or would that be more along the lines of wear due to friction (there is a math formula for this used on everything from tires to machine tools?) Or, since friction generates heat, would it be best to consider the accumulative total of degrees C? (which would be more appropriate for the male member as well) Or perhaps the total amount of force received by the female? Actually, come to think of it, that would be an appropriate measure for a penis anyway, since each forward thrust delivers some measure of force to the receiver. Which would then become an accurate measurement for women in search of a worthy male, since the force delivered would diminish over time as his hip, back and leg muscles age. But then you would need to know the mass of the object, velocity, total surface area at point of impact. Of course a woman that needs 1218 newtons of force and 609 joules energy to achieve orgasm is in for a lot of disappointment. Hmm, we may be discussing a whole new study of math and physics here.....

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/18/2017 9:07:56 PM)
[sm=rofl.gif] If some never make it off the lot, do test drives (masterbation) enter into the equation? Older models would need lead additives (Viagra). The mileage of a penis takes a lot of consideration, to approach a reasonable mathematical equation.

jlf1961 -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/19/2017 9:57:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance [sm=rofl.gif] If some never make it off the lot, do test drives (masterbation) enter into the equation? Older models would need lead additives (Viagra). The mileage of a penis takes a lot of consideration, to approach a reasonable mathematical equation. Well, as one put it on the other site where this popped up, sex is very little like traveling and more like a mechanical operation, therefore, it is not distance that should be considered, but amount of force delivered, energy available to do work etc. So, I think we need to drop the distance equation altogether and look at an actual force v response instead.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/19/2017 10:09:36 AM)
Will you scold me if I point out the flaws in your reasoning? Stand in one spot in any room. put a piece of tape on the floor. Walk forward 3 feet Walk backward 3 feet. Are you not standing over the piece of tape you put on the floor? Yes, but I have travelled 6 feet. Scenario two The planet earth, solar system. milkway, mars bars, etc are not static Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour. As schoolchildren, we learn that the earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour.

jlf1961 -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/19/2017 12:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Will you scold me if I point out the flaws in your reasoning? Stand in one spot in any room. put a piece of tape on the floor. Walk forward 3 feet Walk backward 3 feet. Are you not standing over the piece of tape you put on the floor? Yes, but I have travelled 6 feet. Scenario two The planet earth, solar system. milkway, mars bars, etc are not static Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour. As schoolchildren, we learn that the earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. No, you have traveled zero, in that you have not actually changed relative position. Under the idea that travel indicates a change in final location (which the formula is implying) the answer will always be zero. The equation as set only is set for the one direction of travel (look at it) not the cumulative total of both directions. Thus the answer will always be zero. Now, if you wish to add the variable for the movement in the opposite direction then, your answer would be correct, there is a cumulative total in the distance traveled. Thus the original equation, is indeed flawed. Furthermore, the equation assumes that the male in question does not ever encounter women willing to suck said member, in which case a whole new set of variables need to be added into the calculation. And again, we are completely ignoring women in this new science.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Alright, this has to be a Brit ex living in Canada that came up with this....AGAIN (6/19/2017 12:36:48 PM)
Of similar logic (from the same source in the 70's) The average man's cock is about 6" long The average pussy can accommodate 8" This means that in New York city alone, there is over 100 miles of unused pussy.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875