Have Most Men Measured Their Penises?
Alan Bell
and the subject of personal knowledge of dick size came up. My two
friends both took the position that, while most men have an "idea" of
the size of their penises, most men have never actually taken a ruler
and measured it. I disagree and think that most men have, in fact,
measured their manhood. They suggest that gay men are more likely than
straight men to have measured their dicks, but still feel that those who
have measured (gay or straight) are definitely in the minority.
Questions to the male members (NPI) of the group:
1. Have you measured your penis?
2. Do you think most gay men have measured their penises?
3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
Disclaimer:
This message is about exactly what it says it's about. It's not a Trojan
horse for anything else. It's is not about small penises or large ones.
In fact, the size isn't important. It's about personal knowledge of
one's size, whatever that size happens to be. I also recognize that
people are more than their penises. This message isn't meant to imply
that physical characteristics (or sex in general) is more important than
a full and well-rounded relationship.
Harry Matthews
> Questions to the male members (NPI) of the group:
> 1. Have you measured your penis?
Good grief, do you think I keep a ruler in my nightstand? I had the same
conversation with an episode from my past, and he was astonished that I
could not provide an exact figure. (He seemed to enjoy my endowment
nonetheless.) He also explained complicated guidelines ("Cock must be fully
erect and measured from the base, at top of scrotum....") that reminded me
of books I have read about tall buildings ("Radio antennae are temporary
structures and therefore not included in building height.")
> 2. Do you think most gay men have measured their penises?
In a word, No.
>
> 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
No.
Let's put it this way: if a humpy baseball player struck up a conversation
in a gay bar, I'd be much more fascinated by is RBI than his cock size.
It's nice to have something significant to say when you stop panting.
Harry
Mary Ballard
: Questions to the male members (NPI) of the group:
: 1. Have you measured your penis?
: 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
Hmph. You _could_ include us. :-)
1. Which is more important, labial size or clitoral size?
2. Have you measured your labia?
3. Have you measured your clitoris?
4. Are you obsessed with any other body part in particular?
MeasuringMeanMary
--
Copyright 1999 Mary Ballard // I do not speak for Appalachian State U.
// ball...@am.appstate.edu
---
"All the angels kneel into the frozen lights...
ghosts that haunt you with their sorrow." cLove
Joseph C Fineman
>1. Have you measured your penis?
Yes.
>2. Do you think most gay men have measured their penises?
Yes.
>3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
Yes.
It is an obvious thing to do. Opportunities are numerous. The cost
is small. Life is long.
The question of standardizing the measurement has, I think, been
discussed at times on this newsgroup. You may recall the old story
about the man in the bar who bets that his penis is longer than the
tail of yonder cat. The bartender fetches a ruler & measures the
tail, but when he starts on the penis, its owner objects: "Just a
moment! Where did you measure that cat's tail _from_?" -- "From the
asshole." -- "Well, kindly do me the same favor."
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Ideally, contentment is 60% resignation and 40% :||
||: consolation. :||
david gartner
>As to question 1, yes. I was 14 or 15 and my main sex-buddy and
>I were talking one day about dick size -- his, mine, and the
>guys in our high school we thought were hung, a category that
>we thought did not include us. But we decided to compare our
>own as part of the conversation, hard evidence, so to speak.
>
>As to the other two questions, I honestly have no opinion on.....etc:
i found everything that you wrote fascinating. i can't tell you why. but if
you ever decide to write a book, let me know. i'll buy it. you seem
level-headed, and that turns me on.
bodyprcng
DRS
news:7mu29c$efu$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
[...]
: As for the size issue itself, I still think one of the funnest
: bedroom events is "*oh* *MY*!!" This is rarely spoken but often
: thought, I bet.
You reckon? Me, I'm sick of hearing it. I wish they'd think of something
new, I do.
--
"Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes
can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private
parts"
Nabokov on Freud
Mike McKinley
Jess Anderson wrote:
> I think a lot of men, perhaps reflecting embarrassment about
> such things, are reluctant to acknowledge that they do
> objectify physical characteristics, whether hard bodies, big
> dicks, tight butts, hairy chests, pretty faces, elegant feet
Yes, yes, yes, YES!!!
Robert S. Coren
DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>Jess Anderson <ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>news:7mu29c$efu$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
>
>[...]
>
>: As for the size issue itself, I still think one of the funnest
>: bedroom events is "*oh* *MY*!!" This is rarely spoken but often
>: thought, I bet.
>
>You reckon? Me, I'm sick of hearing it. I wish they'd think of something
>new, I do.
Now, that's a *subtle* bit of self-advertisement, isn't it?
Calling Brent Capps...
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Yet another reason not to read Usenet."
--a soc.motss lurker, referring to me
Robert S. Coren
DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>Robert S. Coren <co...@spdcc.com> wrote in message
>news:7mvdbi$1u4j$1...@newsie2.cent.net...
>: In article <7mvas5$oh2$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
>: DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>: >Jess Anderson <ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>: >news:7mu29c$efu$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
>: >
>: >[...]
>: >
>: >: As for the size issue itself, I still think one of the funnest
>: >: bedroom events is "*oh* *MY*!!" This is rarely spoken but often
>: >: thought, I bet.
>: >
>: >You reckon? Me, I'm sick of hearing it. I wish they'd think of
>something
>: >new, I do.
>:
>: Now, that's a *subtle* bit of self-advertisement, isn't it?
>
>curse, it is, a curse!
And how do you know whether I have any idea of what it's like?
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I feel like my brain was run over by a lawnmower. That was really
excellent." --Rider getting off a roller coaster, as seen on The
Learning Channel
frank w elliott jr
: : 2. Do you think most gay men have measured their penises?
: : 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
:
: Hmph. You _could_ include us. :-)
:
: 1. Which is more important, labial size or clitoral size?
: 2. Have you measured your labia?
: 3. Have you measured your clitoris?
: 4. Are you obsessed with any other body part in particular?
:
: MeasuringMeanMary
Frank
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Harry Matthews <matt...@panix.com> wrote:
> Alan Bell wrote:
>
> > Questions to the male members (NPI) of the group:
> > 1. Have you measured your penis?
>
> I had the same conversation with an episode from my past,
> and he was astonished that I could not provide an exact figure.
> (He seemed to enjoy my endowment nonetheless.)
As your description of your ex's reaction indicates, this issue
is indeed, important to some men (gay *and* straight, in my
experience.
> He also explained complicated guidelines ("Cock must be fully
> erect and measured from the base, at top of scrotum....")
[snip]
Er, no. You should measure along the *top* and *not*
anywhere else. Measuring along the bottom gives an (ahem)
inflated figure. Why measure any part that is not insertable?
You could argue, I suppose, that the area below the shaft is
part of the penis, but that part isn't insertable, and thus (IMO and
evidently others) not legitimately part of a length figure.
> > 2. Do you think most gay men have measured their penises?
>
> In a word, No.
IMO, *yes*.
> > 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
>
> No.
Since penises are a subject of considerable interest to men
in general, I have no doubt that most (at least 51%) men gay,
straight, or bi have measured their penises.
> Let's put it this way: if a humpy baseball player struck up a
> conversation in a gay bar, I'd be much more fascinated by is
> RBI than his cock size.
> It's nice to have something significant to say when you stop panting.
This is true as far as it goes, but you are only speaking for
yourself. I can imagine there would be gay men (especially
those not interested in sports) who would be primarily interested
in matters besides his sports stats (men being men).
Besides, as another poster indicated, what you might do
socially is not necessarily relevant to the issue of whether or not
men measure their penises. Penis size is obviously a matter of
some curiosity to many and it takes little time and effort to do.
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Brian M. Kochera
(Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>As to question 1, yes. I was 14 or 15 and my main sex-buddy and
>I were talking one day about dick size -- his, mine, and the
>guys in our high school we thought were hung,
This reminds me. When I was in high school there was a story going around that
the really fast girls carried something called a "Peter Meter". Supposedly, it
was a device that measured length and girth of erect penis. It also came with
a scale for weighing testicles. I never saw one, and I was best friends with a
girl known as "Nancy Gonnoreah" for her frequent run ins with STDs.
A few years back I substuted at my old junior high. Now the story has changed,
bodybuilders, professional wrestlers and gays supposedly posess these very
scientific cock 'n ball measureing devices. It would seem, from another thread
in soc.motss, that Masters & Johnson posess the ultimate "Peter Meter" to
seperate gays from straights by cock size. <g>
Brian - Brian...@aol.com
my web page - http://members.aol.com/brianshore/FrmSet1.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In real life ... you can't press the Undo Button!!!
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
>In article <37928974...@panix.com>,
> Harry Matthews <matt...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
>>
>> No.
>
> Since penises are a subject of considerable interest to men
> in general, I have no doubt that most (at least 51%) men gay,
>straight, or bi have measured their penises.
I think the proper answer to most of the questions in this thread is
WWJD? :-)
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Mike McKinley
Edgar J. Lawrence II wrote:
> > Let's put it this way: if a humpy baseball player struck up a
> > conversation in a gay bar, I'd be much more fascinated by is
> > RBI than his cock size.
> > It's nice to have something significant to say when you stop panting.
> This is true as far as it goes, but you are only speaking for
> yourself. I can imagine there would be gay men (especially
> those not interested in sports) who would be primarily interested
> in matters besides his sports stats (men being men).
"That guy is so hot. I wonder if he's Baptist?"
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Ohhhhh, I shouldn't do this, but I can't stop myself. Isn't
the concept "hot Baptist" an oxymoron? <ducks>
Arnold Zwicky
<mp...@mail.utexas.edu> tries an idea on for, um, size:
> "That guy is so hot. I wonder if he's Baptist?"
*much* better:
"That guy is so hot. I wonder if he's a *linguist*."
b a in urb
Bigpipe283
Question 2 - Yes
Question 3 - Yes
Total number of responses so far - 18
Total number of responses that answered the question - 4
Mike Jankulak
>Total number of responses so far - 18
>Total number of responses that answered the question - 4
Okey-dokey! Now make it *19* and 4.
--
it's not as though I really need you
if you were here I'd only bleed you
Robert Serrano
"Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:34:45 GMT, cor...@frogger.telerama.com ()
> wrote:
>
> >In article <7mvlhf$1dd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Edgar J. Lawrence II wrote:
> >>In article <37928974...@panix.com>,
> >> Harry Matthews <matt...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> > 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> Since penises are a subject of considerable interest to men
> >> in general, I have no doubt that most (at least 51%) men gay,
> >>straight, or bi have measured their penises.
> >
> >I think the proper answer to most of the questions in this thread is
> >WWJD? :-)
>
> WWBBD is much more relevant.
WWBBD? "What Would Bonnie Bedelia Do?"
Rob
DRS
news:7mvdbi$1u4j$1...@newsie2.cent.net...
: In article <7mvas5$oh2$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
: DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
: >Jess Anderson <ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: >news:7mu29c$efu$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
: >
: >[...]
: >
: >: As for the size issue itself, I still think one of the funnest
: >: bedroom events is "*oh* *MY*!!" This is rarely spoken but often
: >: thought, I bet.
: >
: >You reckon? Me, I'm sick of hearing it. I wish they'd think of
something
: >new, I do.
:
: Now, that's a *subtle* bit of self-advertisement, isn't it?
That's a terrible thing to say! You have no idea how I suffer. It's a
curse, it is, a curse!
--
DRS
: In article <7mvemp$4qq$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
: DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
: >Robert S. Coren <co...@spdcc.com> wrote in message
: >news:7mvdbi$1u4j$1...@newsie2.cent.net...
: >: In article <7mvas5$oh2$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
: >: DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
: >: >Jess Anderson <ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: >: >news:7mu29c$efu$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
: >: >
: >: >[...]
: >: >
: >: >: As for the size issue itself, I still think one of the funnest
: >: >: bedroom events is "*oh* *MY*!!" This is rarely spoken but often
: >: >: thought, I bet.
: >: >
: >: >You reckon? Me, I'm sick of hearing it. I wish they'd think of
: >something
: >: >new, I do.
: >:
: >: Now, that's a *subtle* bit of self-advertisement, isn't it?
: >
: >That's a terrible thing to say! You have no idea how I suffer. It's a
: >curse, it is, a curse!
: And how do you know whether I have any idea of what it's like?
No-one suffers like I suffer.
Roger B.A. Klorese
Roger B.A. Klorese
<rj...@lennon.csufresno.edu> wrote:
>WWBBD? "What Would Bonnie Bedelia Do?"
Brian Boitano, of course.
David Migicovsky
<7mu29c$efu$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
>
>
> I think a lot of men, perhaps reflecting embarrassment about
> such things, are reluctant to acknowledge that they do
> objectify physical characteristics, whether hard bodies, big
> whatever.
>
Elegant feet?
david gartner
i used a tape measure (like one used in sewing) so i could find out how thick i
was (circumference). i've taken a few measurements since that time, with
similar findings.
i have a question, tho. i have a prince albert, and it adds another inch. is
it ok to include that in my meausring?
d. gartner
"i know it is not your life's work. but for your information, "freud: study of
dora" is not a biography. it is the *cornerstone* of his psycho-anaysis.
that's psychology, dear. the psychology section is, for your information, in
the 100s" (party girl)
Mike McKinley
Arnold Zwicky wrote:
Come down here and I'll linguist you.
david gartner
> Come down here and I'll linguist you.
i live on 43rd in austin. would you linguist me?
Clayton Colwell
: Bigpipe283 <bigpi...@aol.com> wrote:
: >Total number of responses so far - 18
: >Total number of responses that answered the question - 4
: Okey-dokey! Now make it *19* and 4.
Kewl. It's not every day one sees an explicit measurement of
signal-to-noise ratios combined with the given Subject: line.
Note how the measurement changes what's being measured (20 and 4).
<tying threads>
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthTroll) ***** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
Mike McKinley
david gartner wrote:
> mike mckinley wrote:
> > Come down here and I'll linguist you.
>
> i live on 43rd in austin. would you linguist me?
>
Really! We've not been introduced...
Are you attractive and/or have money?
Oh hell! Are you breathing?
Edgar J. Lawrence II
mp...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
>
>
> Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>
> > in article <37931C28...@mail.utexas.edu>, mike mckinley
> > <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> tries an idea on for, um, size:
> > > "That guy is so hot. I wonder if he's Baptist?"
> > *much* better:
> > "That guy is so hot. I wonder if he's a *linguist*."
>
But can your tongue reach the bridge of your nose?
Edgar J. Lawrence II
(who had originally mis-typed bridge as fridge)
Edgar J. Lawrence II
body...@aol.comspamfree (david gartner) wrote:
> i just wanted to put in my two cents. i measured my cock when
> i was about 15. i used a tape measure (like one used in sewing)
> so i could find out how thick i was (circumference). i've taken a
> few measurements since that time, with similar findings.
This raises a question I've wondered about. In males, is the
length of the penis set, in general, before one's height is? That
is, does a males height tend to keep increasing after his penis
stops getting longer?
> i have a question, tho. i have a prince albert, and it adds
> another inch. is it ok to include that in my meausring?
I'd say the prince albert shouldn't be included because it
wasn't part of your original equipment.
I have a question about the prince albert. Does it interfere
with wearing condoms? It seems to me that they would tend
to increase instances of condom-tearing. Dirty minds want to
know.
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Christopher R. Gagnon
Heh heh...I heard he was a cunning-linguist.... (not to mention a
wonderful orator...)
Mike McKinley
Jess Anderson wrote:
> [] Even God cannot change the past.
> [] -- Agathon
Or cock-length?
David Horne
> Edgar J. Lawrence II :
>
> >This raises a question I've wondered about. In males, is the
> >length of the penis set, in general, before one's height is?
> >That is, does a males height tend to keep increasing after his
> >penis stops getting longer?
>
> (You're going to be so pleased.) It doesn't.
Damn.
David
--
David Horne
http://listen.to/davidhorne/
david gartner
> I have a question about the prince albert. Does it interfere
>with wearing condoms? It seems to me that they would tend
>to increase instances of condom-tearing. Dirty minds want to
>know.
>
i'm more of the variety of gay men who throw their legs in the air. however, i
take out the PA during all sexcapades. i have kept it in when topping (you'll
almost never see me do this), but that was right after i had it pierced (about
two days after). hope that helps.
could you help me get my legs in the air?
d. gärtner
david gartner
> Or cock-length?
would god want to change his cock length?
David Migicovsky
> David Migicovsky:
> >Jess Anderson:
>
> >>I think a lot of men, perhaps reflecting embarrassment about
> >>such things, are reluctant to acknowledge that they do
> >>objectify physical characteristics, whether hard bodies, big
> >>dicks, tight butts, hairy chests, pretty faces, elegant feet or
> >>whatever.
>
> >Elegant feet?
>
> is *very* common.
>
Of course it is. I just don't refer to the body parts I objectify as
"elegant." I probably would have conveyed my meaning better had I written:
*Elegant* feet?
Edgar J. Lawrence II
body...@aol.comspamfree (david gartner) wrote:
> edgar wrote:
> > I have a question about the prince albert. Does it interfere
> >with wearing condoms? It seems to me that they would tend
> >to increase instances of condom-tearing. Dirty minds want to
> >know.
> >
>
> i'm more of the variety of gay men who throw their legs in the air.
I suspected that having a prince albert was a bottom thing,
but my sample so far (even with your post) isn't large enough to
draw any firm conclusions.
> however, i take out the PA during all sexcapades.
I've seen a couple or few porn actors wear them in videos.
> i have kept it in when topping (you'll almost never see me
> do this), but that was right after i had it pierced (about two
> days after). hope that helps.
Ouch, ouch, ouch. I find it difficult to imagine having sex
for a *week* after getting a prince albert piercing. Anyway,
getting back to the porn actors with prince alberts, I noted
that none of them did any topping.
> could you help me get my legs in the air?
Heh, heh. That depends on what sort of help you want.
Being in a closed relationship means that there are certain
types of help that I'm no longer able to provide.
Mike McKinley
David Migicovsky wrote:
> *Elegant* feet?
Leon Danielian used to admonish us in class, "I want feet from Bvlgari!
Not from the supermarket!" Does this help at all?
David Migicovsky
>
> David Migicovsky:
> >Jess Anderson:
> >>David Migicovsky:
> >>>Jess Anderson:
>
> >>>>I think a lot of men, perhaps reflecting embarrassment about
> >>>>such things, are reluctant to acknowledge that they do
> >>>>objectify physical characteristics, whether hard bodies, big
> >>>>dicks, tight butts, hairy chests, pretty faces, elegant feet or
> >>>>whatever.
>
> >>>Elegant feet?
>
> >>With few exceptions, anything can be eroticized. Foot fetishism
> >>is *very* common.
>
> >Of course it is. I just don't refer to the body parts I
> >objectify as "elegant."
>
I seldom use it unaccompanied by "piss," but even if it were in my everyday
vocabulary, I wouldn't use it for body parts.
Brian M. Kochera
body...@aol.comspamfree (david gartner) writes:
>would god want to change his cock length?
No I don't think She would. <g>
Brian - Brian...@aol.com
my web page - http://members.aol.com/brianshore/FrmSet1.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In real life ... you can't press the Undo Button!!!
Mary Ballard
: Mary Ballard (ball...@am.appstate.edu) wrote:
: : Alan Bell (al...@blk.com) wrote:
: : Hmph. You _could_ include us. :-)
: : 1. Which is more important, labial size or clitoral size?
: : 2. Have you measured your labia?
: : 3. Have you measured your clitoris?
: : 4. Are you obsessed with any other body part in particular?
: Care to answer your own questions? :-)
I'd blush or something.
There is variation in the size of women's external genitalia
tho', but no one ever comments on it much.
MeanMary
--
Copyright 1999 Mary Ballard // I do not speak for Appalachian State U.
// ball...@am.appstate.edu
---
"All the angels kneel into the frozen lights...
ghosts that haunt you with their sorrow." cLove
Mike McKinley
Gwendolyn Alden Dean wrote:
> Mr. Gabriel used to slap our inner when we were en eleve in second position
> and shriek, "Theess eess like jello! Theess eess deessgusting!"
We had a dancer who *thought* that he was fabulous at petite allegro and
batterie (desperately seeking obvious ripostes) -- he wasn't any good though at
this kind of fast, light and precise movement. Anyway, he was described by our
ballet mistress as looking like a cat trying to cover up his shit in a sand
storm.
Brian M. Kochera
Alden Dean) writes:
>
>Mr. Gabriel used to slap our inner when we were en eleve in second position
>and shriek, "Theess eess like jello! Theess eess deessgusting!"
>
Inner what? Child? Tube? Sanctum? Ear? Although, the thought of a human
being equipped with an inner tube is kinda frightening. <g>
John Dorrance
> Jess Anderson <ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu> wrote in article
> <7n493j$ivi$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
> > David Migicovsky:
> > >Of course it is. I just don't refer to the body parts I
> > >objectify as "elegant."
> > What *do* you use the word for, then?
> I seldom use it unaccompanied by "piss," but even if it were in my everyday
> vocabulary, I wouldn't use it for body parts.
[piggybacking here - please forgive]
To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level of
aesthetically-pleasing artifice. Sexual response usually isn't rooted
in... no wait, I haven't been thinking of the airbrushed models in
straight boys' porn. But really, in a lot of non-mainstream sexual
circles, I get the impression that culture and its trappings are kind of
the antithesis of sexual allure. Well, even in the case of foot
fetishism, straight male practitioners seem to like to see a woman's
feet in heels and such, while a foot-fetishist friend of mine (hi
James!) seems attracted to feet in boots, so there are obviously
cultural trappings to this stuff, too. Elegance, though, doesn't seem
to be tied to eroticness at all. I guess. YMMV.
--
large amounts of blood Passersby were amazed at the unusually large
amounts of *John Dorrance* re amazed by the unusually large amounts
of blood Passersby were amazed at the *Madison, WI* amounts of
blood Passersby were amazed at the unusually large amounts of blood
John Dorrance
> Inner what? Child? Tube? Sanctum? Ear? Although, the thought of a human
> being equipped with an inner tube is kinda frightening. <g>
Though the thought of a ballerina equipped with an inner tube is kinda
funny.
John (speaking of actual inner tubes, here, not any figurative
overweight connotation)
Edgar J. Lawrence II
ball...@am.appstate.edu (Mary Ballard) wrote:
> frank w elliott jr (elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu) wrote:
> : Mary Ballard (ball...@am.appstate.edu) wrote:
> : : Alan Bell (al...@blk.com) wrote:
> : : Hmph. You _could_ include us. :-)
> : : 1. Which is more important, labial size or clitoral size?
> : : 2. Have you measured your labia?
> : : 3. Have you measured your clitoris?
> : : 4. Are you obsessed with any other body part in particular?
> : Care to answer your own questions? :-)
>
> I'd blush or something.
>
> There is variation in the size of women's external genitalia
> tho', but no one ever comments on it much.
Indeed there *is* variation. Some years ago, I saw some er,
um, *unusual* photos. And no, these were not transsexuals.
Mike McKinley
Brian M. Kochera wrote:
> In article <7n749r$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, gd...@cornell.edu (Gwendolyn
> Alden Dean) writes:
> >Mr. Gabriel used to slap our inner when we were en eleve in second position
> >and shriek, "Theess eess like jello! Theess eess deessgusting!"
> Inner what? Child? Tube? Sanctum? Ear? Although, the thought of a human
> being equipped with an inner tube is kinda frightening. <g>
Inner thighs, unless I very mistaken. Gwendolyn?
John Dorrance
> Inner THIGHS, dammit, THIGHS!
Sah-*REE*! Jeez!
--
John Dorrance Madison, WI
"Inner THIGHS, dammit, THIGHS!" -- Gwendolyn
Joseph C Fineman
>There is variation in the size of women's external genitalia tho',
>but no one ever comments on it much.
The song that begins
Four old whores of Liverpool
Were drinking sherry wine,
And one said to the other,
"Yours is no bigger than mine"
is one that I find funny precisely because it transfers a typically
male obsession to women.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Entertainers have all the vices of politicians, and none of :||
||: the excuses. :||
Harry Matthews
questions: WWYD? What what you do? Is cock size really the key, or are
there other factors that draw us to celebrities?
Hint: vent at a bar, then join a demonstration.
Harry
Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:34:45 GMT, cor...@frogger.telerama.com ()
> wrote:
>
> >In article <7mvlhf$1dd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Edgar J. Lawrence II wrote:
> >>In article <37928974...@panix.com>,
> >> Harry Matthews <matt...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> > 3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> Since penises are a subject of considerable interest to men
> >> in general, I have no doubt that most (at least 51%) men gay,
> >>straight, or bi have measured their penises.
> >
> >I think the proper answer to most of the questions in this thread is
> >WWJD? :-)
>
> WWBBD is much more relevant.
Dave Rose
<jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Brian M. Kochera wrote:
>
> > Inner what? Child? Tube? Sanctum? Ear? Although, the thought of a human
> > being equipped with an inner tube is kinda frightening. <g>
>
> Though the thought of a ballerina equipped with an inner tube is kinda
> funny.
Well, it's certainly butcher than a tu-tu!
dave
Kathryn L. Schmitz
Brian M. Kochera <brian...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>In article <7n749r$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, gd...@cornell.edu (Gwendolyn
>Alden Dean) writes:
>>
>>Mr. Gabriel used to slap our inner when we were en eleve in second position
>>and shriek, "Theess eess like jello! Theess eess deessgusting!"
>
She means her inner bitch, no doubt.
Katie, teasing
David Migicovsky
<379713...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> David Migicovsky wrote:
>
> > Jess Anderson <ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu> wrote in article
> > <7n493j$ivi$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
>
> > > David Migicovsky:
>
> > > >Of course it is. I just don't refer to the body parts I
> > > >objectify as "elegant."
>
> > > What *do* you use the word for, then?
>
> > I seldom use it unaccompanied by "piss," but even if it were in my
everyday
> > vocabulary, I wouldn't use it for body parts.
>
> [piggybacking here - please forgive]
Piggybacking's fine. No barebacking please.
>
> To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level of
> aesthetically-pleasing artifice. Sexual response usually isn't rooted
> in... no wait, I haven't been thinking of the airbrushed models in
> straight boys' porn. But really, in a lot of non-mainstream sexual
> circles, I get the impression that culture and its trappings are kind of
> the antithesis of sexual allure. Well, even in the case of foot
> fetishism, straight male practitioners seem to like to see a woman's
> feet in heels and such, while a foot-fetishist friend of mine (hi
> James!) seems attracted to feet in boots, so there are obviously
> cultural trappings to this stuff, too. Elegance, though, doesn't seem
> to be tied to eroticness at all. I guess. YMMV.
>
Precisely. Fred Astaire never made it as a gay sex symbol. Marky Mark did.
David Migicovsky
<FFAo5...@world.std.com>...
> ball...@am.appstate.edu (Mary Ballard) writes:
>
> >There is variation in the size of women's external genitalia tho',
> >but no one ever comments on it much.
>
> The song that begins
>
> Four old whores of Liverpool
> Were drinking sherry wine,
> And one said to the other,
> "Yours is no bigger than mine"
>
> is one that I find funny precisely because it transfers a typically
> male obsession to women.
>
No it doesn't. The old whores I know who drink sherry and compare genital
size *are* men.
Lee Rudolph
>ball...@am.appstate.edu (Mary Ballard) writes:
>
>>There is variation in the size of women's external genitalia tho',
>>but no one ever comments on it much.
>
>The song that begins
>
> Four old whores of Liverpool
> Were drinking sherry wine,
> And one said to the other,
> "Yours is no bigger than mine"
>
>is one that I find funny precisely because it transfers a typically
>male obsession to women.
But that song, as I've always understood it, refers not to the size
of the external genitalia" but to the (volumetric) capacity of the
inner.
Lee Rudolph
Edgar J. Lawrence II
j...@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) wrote:
> ball...@am.appstate.edu (Mary Ballard) writes:
>
> >There is variation in the size of women's external genitalia tho',
> >but no one ever comments on it much.
>
> The song that begins
>
> Four old whores of Liverpool
> Were drinking sherry wine,
> And one said to the other,
> "Yours is no bigger than mine"
>
> is one that I find funny precisely because it transfers a typically
> male obsession to women.
"In the port of Amsterdam
There's a sailor who drinks
And he drinks and he drinks
And he drinks once again.
He'll drink to the health
Of the whores of Amsterdam,
Who've given their bodies
To a thousand other men"
--Jacques Brel
DRS
news:01bed4ae$ca800c60$3e06010a@call62...
[...]
: Precisely. Fred Astaire never made it as a gay sex symbol. Marky Mark
did.
What a thought! Fred Astaire with a six-pack.
--
"Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes
can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private
parts"
Nabokov on Freud
Edgar J. Lawrence II
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
> David Migicovsky <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
> news:01bed4ae$ca800c60$3e06010a@call62...
>
> [...]
>
> : Precisely. Fred Astaire never made it as a gay sex symbol. Marky
Mark
> did.
>
> What a thought! Fred Astaire with a six-pack.
Indeed. Surely Astaire was more a Moet et Chandon person.
Brian M. Kochera
<elaw...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>"In the port of Amsterdam
>There's a sailor who drinks
>And he drinks and he drinks
>And he drinks once again.
>He'll drink to the health
>Of the whores of Amsterdam,
>Who've given their bodies
>To a thousand other men"
> --Jacques Brel
>
So that's what I heard the last time I got put on hold at KLM a/k/a Royal Dutch
Airlines! Old whores don't measure their genitalia. They measure their "inner
bitch".
David Migicovsky
<7nae3n$ss3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <7n9rvv$rrk$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
> > David Migicovsky <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
> > news:01bed4ae$ca800c60$3e06010a@call62...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > : Precisely. Fred Astaire never made it as a gay sex symbol. Marky
> Mark
> > did.
> >
> > What a thought! Fred Astaire with a six-pack.
>
> Indeed. Surely Astaire was more a Moet et Chandon person.
>
You mean he had a long, hard cylindrical object that used to spurt all over
the place and he *still* never made it as a gay sex symbol?
Brian M. Kochera
(Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>John Dorrance:
>
>>To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level
>>of aesthetically-pleasing artifice.
>
>What, there's no *natural* elegance?
>
>>Sexual response usually isn't rooted in... no wait, I haven't
>>been thinking of the airbrushed models in straight boys'
>>porn.
>
>It could be an interesting discussion as to what sexual
>response *is* rooted in.
>
>>But really, in a lot of non-mainstream sexual circles, I get
>>the impression that culture and its trappings are kind of the
>>antithesis of sexual allure.
>
>I'm not clear what you're saying there. Virtually anything can
>be the focus of sexual allure. And I wonder how useful it is to
>be trying to define what's a turn-on in terms only of what's a
>turn-off.
>
[snip]
>
>>Elegance, though, doesn't seem to be tied to eroticness at
>>all.
>
>But that's just wrong; it certainly is, for some people.
>
I think that Richard Bransen (Virgin Air etc) is both elegant, rich and very
sexy. He can take me up-up-and away in his baloon anytime!
Fred Astare elegant? Er, didn't he always play the poor schlub who woos and
wins the elegant, yet sometimes fiesty Ginger Rodgers? True his dancing was
classic yet accessable. If his screen persona was elegant wasn't it by
association?
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Well, those Moet et Chandon things are only good *once*
you know.
Joseph C Fineman
>No it doesn't. The old whores I know who drink sherry and compare
>genital size *are* men.
Very likely. However, the next stanza goes
"You're a liar," said the second one,
"For mine's as big as the sea.
The ships sail in & the ships sail out
And never bother me."
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: The vice of politicians and business executives is to judge :||
||: everything by one number. :||
Joseph C Fineman
>>is one that I find funny precisely because it transfers a typically
>>male obsession to women.
>But that song, as I've always understood it, refers not to the size
>of the external genitalia" but to the (volumetric) capacity of the
>inner.
Making it a good fit to male sexual vanity. %^)
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: "Chicken": a game played by delinquents in California and :||
||: statesmen everywhere. :||
Joseph C Fineman
> Well, those Moet et Chandon things are only good *once* you
>know.
But there's always another, if you have the money.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Atheists believe that Nobody is responsible for this mess. :||
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>John Dorrance:
>
>>To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level
>>of aesthetically-pleasing artifice.
>
>What, there's no *natural* elegance?
Depends on how you define elegance.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
DRS
news:FFEC1...@world.std.com...
: "David Migicovsky" <s...@sig.com> writes:
:
: >No it doesn't. The old whores I know who drink sherry and compare
: >genital size *are* men.
:
: Very likely. However, the next stanza goes
:
: "You're a liar," said the second one,
: "For mine's as big as the sea.
: The ships sail in & the ships sail out
: And never bother me."
I never knew Mike McKinley was a whore in Amsterdam.
Lee Rudolph
>Edgar J. Lawrence II <elaw...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> Well, those Moet et Chandon things are only good *once* you
>>know.
>
>But there's always another, if you have the money.
Do you, by any chance, know the whole of the song of which Sigmund
Spaeth somewhere quotes just the refrain "Moet et Chandon /'s the
platform I stand on"?
Lee Rudolph
David W. Fenton
: In article <7nc876$hiq$1...@grandprime.binc.net>,
: Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
: >
: >John Dorrance:
: >
: >>To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level
: >>of aesthetically-pleasing artifice.
: >
: >What, there's no *natural* elegance?
:
: Depends on how you define elegance.
Or "nature."
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Joseph C Fineman
>Do you, by any chance, know the whole of the song of which Sigmund
>Spaeth somewhere quotes just the refrain "Moet et Chandon /'s the
>platform I stand on"?
Alas, not even the refrain.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: What is the population of the largest city you have never :||
||: heard of? :||
Edgar J. Lawrence II
>
> > Well, those Moet et Chandon things are only good *once* you
> >know.
>
> But there's always another, if you have the money.
Yes, indeed. The classified ads in Unzipped will give one
an idea of what can be done if one has the funds and inclination
for such "purchases."
Michael Thomas
> ||: heard of? :||
Was this designed to raise Arne?
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"I dunno, that's an awful lot of money."
Beavis
Brian M. Kochera
>
>Questions to the male members (NPI) of the group:
>1. Have you measured your penis?
>2. Do you think most gay men have measured their penises?
>3. Do you think most straight men have measured their penises?
>
Appropriate to this topic: A program on the Discovery Channel. Basicly it was
a look at some of the erotic temple art in India. One extended segment was
about the temples erected by Rajah Raja (sp?). He was a devote of Shiva. The
main focus of Shiva worship is the ritual bathing, adorning and adoration of
the lingum (sp?). The lingum being a huge phallic shaped stone. Rajah Raja
then the leader of all India and conquerer of all surrounding countries, saw to
it that his lingum was the biggest and grandest in all the land.To this date
there isn't one bigger. I mean you shoulda seen this thing it was
H-U-M-O-N-G-O-U-S!! It took a multi-story temple building to hold it. Ironic
isn't it? This in a nation that has some of the most repressive and homophobic
laws and attitudes towards gays.
Mike McKinley
Brian M. Kochera wrote:
> This in a nation that has some of the most repressive and homophobic
> laws and attitudes towards gays.
They have a Eunuch Festival in India every year. I wanna go and get a
T-shirt.
Mike McKinley
DRS wrote:
> Joseph C Fineman <j...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:FFEC1...@world.std.com...
> : "David Migicovsky" <s...@sig.com> writes:
> : >No it doesn't. The old whores I know who drink sherry and compare
> : >genital size *are* men.
> : Very likely. However, the next stanza goes
> : "You're a liar," said the second one,
> : "For mine's as big as the sea.
> : The ships sail in & the ships sail out
> : And never bother me."
> I never knew Mike McKinley was a whore in Amsterdam.
Unfortunately, only for a week.
John Dorrance
Treasured...".
Jess Anderson wrote:
> John Dorrance:
> >To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level
> >of aesthetically-pleasing artifice.
> What, there's no *natural* elegance?
I don't mean to imply that. Or I don't *think* I meant to imply that.
> >Sexual response usually isn't rooted in... no wait, I haven't
> >been thinking of the airbrushed models in straight boys'
> >porn.
> It could be an interesting discussion as to what sexual
> response *is* rooted in.
That's kind of impossible to say. But then, this kinda goes against
what I was saying last week. But then, I'm beginning to re-think what I
was saying last week, since...
> >But really, in a lot of non-mainstream sexual circles, I get
> >the impression that culture and its trappings are kind of the
> >antithesis of sexual allure.
...a lot of fetish sexuality is a culture unto itself. There are
specific looks one is expected to adhere to in leather sexuality, for
example, or many other fetish sexualities, that are fairly clearly
defined. The look might be "rougher" in style than looks that are
revered in mainstream culture, but they're still defined.
> I'm not clear what you're saying there. Virtually anything can
> be the focus of sexual allure. And I wonder how useful it is to
> be trying to define what's a turn-on in terms only of what's a
> turn-off.
I don't think I was implying that sexuality can be defined only in terms
of what is not sexy.
> >Well, even in the case of foot fetishism, straight male
> >practitioners seem to like to see a woman's feet in heels and
> >such, while a foot-fetishist friend of mine (hi James!) seems
> >attracted to feet in boots, so there are obviously cultural
> >trappings to this stuff, too.
> It hadn't occurrred to me before that foot-fetishes (not one of
> my fixations, despite having brought this up indirectly by
> referring to "elegant feet")
You sell yourself short, darling. Just as a point of fact, that turn of
phrase was exactly what started all of this. You, you, *you*!!!
> would extend to circumstances in
> which the foot isn't even visible, like boots. De gustibus, I
> guess.
I think maybe there's some kind of fermentation concern that can only be
addressed when the feet under consideration have been under wraps for a
day. And, after all, sometimes it's fun to look at someone (or
something) not-naked, to give the imagination a workout.
> >Elegance, though, doesn't seem to be tied to eroticness at
> >all.
> But that's just wrong; it certainly is, for some people.
Oh, but who worries about *them*?
> >I guess. YMMV.
> Guess again, ass-boy.
Well, fine then. I'm probably projecting, but then what else is the
world good for?
--
John Dorrance Madison, WI
"Inner THIGHS, dammit, THIGHS!" -- Gwendolyn
Frank Swilling
--
Frank
Mike McKinley <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:379C3692...@mail.utexas.edu...
I can see it now:
Front: I went to the Indian Eunuch Festival and all I got was this lousy
t-shirt.
Back: Thank God!
Frank
Edgar J. Lawrence II
John Dorrance <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> I keep wanting to read the title of this thread as "Have Most Men
> Treasured...".
I've always been quite attached to mine.
[deleta]
Josh Simon
> I keep wanting to read the title of this thread as "Have Most Men
> Treasured...".
You mean it isn't?
-j, who wonders if "treasuring one's penis" means locking it away in
a trunk and burying it on some deserted beach, hiding the map to
it where nobody'll ever find it -- and if so, why anyone would
*want* to treasure it
--
= Josh Simon These opinions may not be my employers'. =
= jss at clock.org Home page: http://www.clock.org/~jss/ =
"I would not, could not kill the King/I would not poison anything!"
-- Green Eggs and Hamlet, by Dr. William Seuss (Theodore Shakespeare)
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
>John Dorrance <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> I keep wanting to read the title of this thread as "Have Most Men
>> Treasured...".
>
>You mean it isn't?
>
>-j, who wonders if "treasuring one's penis" means locking it away in
> a trunk and burying it on some deserted beach, hiding the map to
> it where nobody'll ever find it -- and if so, why anyone would
> *want* to treasure it
Er, no. It means taking said penis to a bathhouse where others can
kiss it (or not), and perhaps taking it out for a fine dinner with
too much cilantro (which is possible) and then reading from comic
books with GLBT characters while rejecting apologies from born-again
Catholics.
HTH
Christian Hansen
wrote:
>I can see it now:
>
>Front: I went to the Indian Eunuch Festival and all I got was this lousy
>t-shirt.
>
>Back: Thank God!
I hope you don't mind my using this in my sig...I love it.
--
Chris Hansen | chris at hansenhome dot demon dot co dot uk
"The Indian Eunuch Festival Official T-Shirt:
Front: 'I went to the Indian Eunuch Festival and all I got was this lousy
t-shirt.' Back: 'Thank God!'" Frank Swilling
Edgar J. Lawrence II
"Frank Swilling" <fswi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Frank
>
> Mike McKinley <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:379C3692...@mail.utexas.edu...
> >
> >
> > Brian M. Kochera wrote:
> >
> > > This in a nation that has some of the most repressive and
homophobic
> > > laws and attitudes towards gays.
> >
> > They have a Eunuch Festival in India every year. I wanna go and
get a
> > T-shirt.
>
>
> Front: I went to the Indian Eunuch Festival and all I got was this
lousy
> t-shirt.
>
> Back: Thank God!
Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva? Huitzilipochtli?
David W. Fenton
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
>cor...@frogger.telerama.com wrote:
>: In article <7nia14$p2b$1...@news.ysu.edu>, Josh Simon wrote:
>: >John Dorrance <jhdo...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>: >> I keep wanting to read the title of this thread as "Have Most Men
>: >> Treasured...".
>: >
>: >You mean it isn't?
>: >
>: >-j, who wonders if "treasuring one's penis" means locking it away in
>: > a trunk and burying it on some deserted beach, hiding the map to
>: > it where nobody'll ever find it -- and if so, why anyone would
>: > *want* to treasure it
>:
>: Er, no. It means taking said penis to a bathhouse where others can
>: kiss it (or not), and perhaps taking it out for a fine dinner with
>: too much cilantro (which is possible) and then reading from comic
>: books with GLBT characters while rejecting apologies from born-again
>: Catholics.
>
>Was that your Sunday night or Saturday, Scott?
Friday, actually.
Scott, who was in Clarion on Saturday
John Dorrance
> John Dorrance:
> >Jess Anderson:
> >>John Dorrance:
> >>>To me, elegance has to do with culturedness, with a high level
> >>>of aesthetically-pleasing artifice.
> >>What, there's no *natural* elegance?
> >I don't mean to imply that. Or I don't *think* I meant to
> >imply that.
But then, I think natural "elegance" is often called elegant because of
associations with cultural artifice, often things seen as being good
because it's a part of "our (read: people of Euro/Brit descent)
heritage" and it takes a lot of money to do/own them.
> I was keying off the idea of culture/artifice, which to me
> suggests something made, certainly a category to which the word
> elegant can apply. I think that's somehow distinct (though
> maybe some comparison is implicit) from appreciating shape and
> proportion in natural objects, for instance.
As I hear it, "elegant" isn't merely a synonym for "pretty" or
"attractive". It's also got overtones of class (meaning both high-class
and upper-class, rooted in the American idealization of white Euro/Brit
culture) that taint its use in descriptions of sexual response. I mean,
I'm sure a lot of people have sexual wiring that includes a respect for
money and power and "old world"-ness, and actually I guess there are
some Europhile foot-fetishists, but it seems kind of incongrouous, just
the same.
> >>I'm not clear what you're saying there. Virtually anything can
> >>be the focus of sexual allure. And I wonder how useful it is to
> >>be trying to define what's a turn-on in terms only of what's a
> >>turn-off.
> >I don't think I was implying that sexuality can be defined only
> >in terms of what is not sexy.
> Well, you said your impression was that culture, etc. was the
> antithesis of sexual allure. I still don't know what you were
> trying to say there.
I don't know, honestly. It just kind of squicks me that the kind of
europhilia I speak of above can taint a person's sexuality - it seems
dishonest to me (and I'm not meaning europeans are Not Sexy, just that
striving for classy blah blah blah in the American phenomenon of "our
forebears were ideal!" blah blah blah seems a really grody perversion of
sex) (and this merely a gut-level response to the use of a word that
triggers issues for me, so please don't bother saying "that's not fair!"
or "all sexuality involves societal conditioning!" or whatever, because
I'm aware of that, but I'm just talking about a gut-level blah blah
blah).
> >>It hadn't occurrred to me before that foot-fetishes (not one of
> >>my fixations, despite having brought this up indirectly by
> >>referring to "elegant feet")
> >You sell yourself short, darling. Just as a point of fact,
> >that turn of phrase was exactly what started all of this. You,
> >you, *you*!!!
> Nice try, butt-baby. It was merely a common example of a
> body-part that lots of people eroticize.
Huh? No, we're (or at least I'm; I could be missing something here)
talking about the use of the word "elegant" as a synonym for "hot" or
"sexy", which is what I'm talking about, and you're responding to, and
you were the one who used that useage, unless I am misreading or you
miswrote originally. Hence, this little threadlet seems directly
brought up by your reference to "elegant feet".
> >>>Elegance, though, doesn't seem to be tied to eroticness at
> >>>all.
> >>But that's just wrong; it certainly is, for some people.
> >Well, fine then. I'm probably projecting, but then what else
> >is the world good for?
> But *what* are you projecting? Eroticizing non-elegance,
> perhaps, or dirt or rawness or something along those lines?
No, just being squicked by having class issues tied in with sexuality.
John (this post is a perfect example of having a complex and vague issue
and not having the time (or the inclination to create the time) to deal
with the issue adequately. I'm incredibly frustrated right now, which
is complicated/reflected by the fact that my typing skills have gone
straight down the tubes during the time I've been hacking this post
together. I really fucking hate that.)
--
John Dorrance Madison, WI
Chuck Bauer, head of Greater State St. Business Assoc., says he would
like to use BID funds for "such creative touches as corn husks on
light poles in the fall, flowers in spring and carolers at Christmas."
Mike McKinley
John Dorrance wrote:
> I'm incredibly frustrated right now, which
> is complicated/reflected by the fact that my typing skills have gone
> straight down the tubes during the time I've been hacking this post
> together. I really fucking hate that.)
Darling, why are you frustrated? Tell Momma. Tell Momma *ALL*.