in article 3cfe921422593f6424ff9d017ed6913b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
at bratzirules@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 5/5/08 9:19 PM:
> Again, while human males and females are NOT totally universally
adapted,
> 85% of males work well in 85% of females. The advantage of large *****
> size, aside from success in the **** film industry (too modern and
unusual
> to be of evolutionary im****tance) is visual and mostly by directly
acting
> on the minds of other hetero***ual males, by giving the bejingled
> intergroup status, which THEN transfers to desireability amongst the
> female herd.
>
> The appeal to homo***ual males is irrelevant evolutionarily. The direct
> appeal to females is relevant only in the case of size queens, most of
> whom are not especially loose in the cunnus, but have a psychological
need
> for being stuffed. It's a fairly irrelevant thing evolutionarily. As is
the
> case of the genuinely wide-****ed, who desire the specially huge men for
> simple fit reasons. Today most of these women get "torqued down"
> surgically because the same phenomenon also renders them fecally or
> urinarily incontinent in many cases.
>
> This is a little off subject, sorry....
>
> --
> Message posted using
http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/
> More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html
>
No, it's WAY off topic, Bret, and useless drivel, too. Why don't you join
Middiot at rec.audio.cesspool?
J
|
