A question for the ladies
 

I have received several emails lately suggesting that all that women really want is a good hard 12" cock. Does this mean that I should take the flowers and choclates that I was going to give for Valentines Day back to the petrol station for a refund?

it's always about the cock. girls care about nothing else.

Thanks for clearing that up.

oh, thank gawd.

no need for chocolates!

ahem.

Chocolate cocks, that's what they like

Exactly what I meant. What were you thinking I was talking about?

Absolutely 100% true.

The wikipedia page about roosters is actually really funny

Clever

Girls just wanna have funds.

Girls suxx.

(toothpastefordinner.com)

You guys apply so well to all these!

i think 12" would just cause pain no?

12" wouldn't even go in all the way...length is not that relevant anyway. not that it isn't helpful. 8 will do thanks.

less than that has.

but at 12" i believe it just remains kinda floppy, so the stabbing power disappears.

i've seen enough porn flicks to have observed that.

huge cock = floppy cock

depends where you put it

wizard's sleeve.

i've hit the back wall and i don't pack a 12 incher.

vaginas are only like 3 inches deep or something like that? shouldn't be that difficult. although apparently it expands although i can't imagine it doing so that much.

NO FUCKING WAY!

then where is the rest of it "going"?

I'm shocked and horrified right now.

they have accordion powers, ha ha. a woman can push down her cervix (that's how you put on a diaphragm).

but they can't stretch infinitely back. so pouncing a woman with small genitals with an oversized hard cock can put her in a world of hurt.

the kama sutra had it right-- the sizes gotta match.

i cant' google you links but everyone should read that. a lot of ancient bollocks but good stuff too.

sorry for your loss :(

I hope those dentures are made of diamonds, I'm packing an adamantium dongle.

the question is..can your adamantium dongle go up against my light saber shlong?

It depends on the receiving hole, you silly man.

I might sound pretty innocent after the previous interventions in that thread, but if she got your love, flowers and chocolate is she not spoilt enough?

Warning bells about anomalies in the fiscal sector were sounded in the summer of 2001, but not heeded.
Among those who has since raised questions was Bill Bergman. As a financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve, he was assigned in 2003 to review the record of July and August of 2001. He noticed an unusual surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply (cash circulating outside of banks) during that period. The surge totaled over $5 billion above the norm for a two-month increase.
The increase in August alone was the third largest single monthly increase since 1947, even after a significantly above-average month in July.
Surges in the currency component of M1 are often the result of people withdrawing their cash to protect themselves lest some anticipated disaster (such as Y2K) befall the economy. In January of 1991 a surge was recorded (the then second-largest since ’47), which could be attributed to “war-time hoarding” before the Iraq I invasion, but could also be attributed to financial maneuverings and liquefying of assets relating to the BCCI enforcement proceedings.
Bergman points out that the August 2001 withdrawals may have been, to a large extent, caused by the Argentinian banking crisis that was occurring at the time. However, he raises the point that no explanation has yet fully answered the important question: Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before the 9/11 attacks never investigated?
It’s possible that the answer to this question is also the answer to the other follow-the-money questions surrounding 9/11; and despite an embarrassing heap of evidence, neither the press, nor Congress, nor any agency with investigative responsibility has done its job on our behalf. On the contrary, their inaction might reasonably be construed as a cover-up.
Bergman "followed the money," including developing a framework for working with money-laundering data and “suspicious activity” reports for monitoring and investigating terrorism. The questions he asked about what happened during the summer of 2001 should have led to investigations, which should have resulted in the prosecution of those with foreknowledge of the attacks.
Those who follow the history of the 9/11 fact-finding movement know that there is a laundry-list of unanswered questions that are just as compelling as those put forth by Bergman.
And there is also a laundry-list of whistle-blowers who have been fired and subsequently ignored. So it is not at all surprising that Bergman was removed from his investigative duties, and that his concerns were not publicly addressed.
Bergman's supervisor instructed him to follow up on an unanswered question he had raised pertaining to an August 2, 2001 letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to the 12 Reserve Banks. This letter urged scrutiny of suspicious activity reports. Bergman learned of the pervasiveness of the warnings of the 9/11 attacks, and wondered how thoroughly these warnings had permeated the financial system.
In this capacity as Federal Reserve investigative point-man, and with his money-laundering portfolio being guided by his supervisor's directive, he asked the Board why they had issued their August 2, 2001 directive, and whether this related to any heightened intelligence of a terrorist threat. His position was then eliminated, and a crucial investigation was terminated before it could even begin.

Ok, it's time for that injection.

is this an exclusive party or can I get in on it?

yes kiki, i believe crumb's crunchy delights had made that point already, but i chose to ignore it-- i didnt' want to go into that old discussion of the pussy vs. the cacahole, even though the original question was for "the ladies", because, sure, some ladies love the backdoor action and keep a huge collection of anal beads, so one can't generalize; but even then, my quote you chose to so inaptly refute remains valid, viz., that huge cocks have a more difficult time staying hard, which is simply a matter of hydraulics, not of their hole of destination.

erm ive 2 words to say...

BIRTH and CANAL! of course it expands... mind you i dont have a vagina so....



its uterus not uteryou.....................

But you're basing you views on watching a couple of porn movies. In any case I wasn't referring to anal sex but to vaginas. Anyway, enough of this silly conversation.

anal sex is a total hassle, it makes a mess, you need lube, it feels a bit weird, generally it takes time to loosen "things" up

vaginas expand during delivery of a child in WIDTH, not depth.

vaginas expand a good amount in length but a foot long will bottom out before getting all the way in. the girl will have pain and intense orgasms.

I think it means you look at too much internet porn. Can't get/keep a girl if you keep wacking off at the computer.

can I just have the flowers?

You really know how to hurt a guy's feelings, bitch!