On May 6, 2:32 am, Patrick Turner <i...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> BretLudwig wrote:
>
> > 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....
>
> I am not the slightest bit prudish and retain undiminished interest in
> ***uality.
>
> I am not so sure I can agree with your logic about genital sizes.
>
> I've never met or had *** with a "torqued down" ****ela.
> despite repeated childbirth or none at all, the FANNY is
> still an intersting thing and varies in size, taste, smell, cost and
> availability and so does the person attatched to the darn thing.
There is a biological condition in which women have outsized vaginas
and anuses. It's surgically fixable, it's rare, and it occurs most
frequently in populations in the Middle East such as Berbers, where
unfortunately getting it fixed is complicated by both poverty and the
fundamentalist Islamic attitudes and mores regarding medicine.
|
