Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hmmm interesting... funnily enough me and my current beau (I say "current" not because I am some commitment phobic foppish cad, but because it remains early days...) were asking ourselves the very same question after a delightful bout of slightly hung-over Sunday afternoon love making... and we concluded the following:


The size of a ladies "whatsit" (and I'm not taking garish orange cheese snack...), matters just as much as the size of a fellas "ding-dong" (and I'm not talking big shiny bells, or may be I am... I digress, as usual.).


Indeed we concluded, on this basis, we were a perfect match (Yes, I know, sure she tells all the boys) - due to (drum roll please)... the rare phenomenon that is "MBSS" or "Mutually Beneficial Sexual Sizing" as we have now rather pompously coined it (course we haven't... that would make us wankers...which, actually, we also are - mutual ones of course - I digress, as usual).


And, as a fairly alluring thirty plus fella, I can confirm the crucial importance of MBSS. Over the years, I've frustratedly waved my wand in a Royal Albert Hall or two, barely touching the sides and, conversely using exactly the same appendage (thank god), I've squeezed my perfectly satisfactory party-sausage into pleasingly tight spots - a la Mrs Chumley-Warner in a Porsche Cayenne on a residential side street.


So in rigorous scientific conclusion?


The size of a man's tackle matters little if you have a chuff the size of a bucket.

James Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >>to he** with size... what about circumcision???

>

>

> i know it's barbaric, unnatural, etc... but it's

> so much better for certain things!! sorry lads.

>

> Can you elaborate on this?


yes, but i'm not sure whether it will pass the censors!

It's not just width and muscle tone that make women's 'chuffs' different sizes, it's legnth too. If a guy can't hit the G spot but she has a kung fu grip, it's ok for him, but not for the woman. So for some women I think that smaller gents may not do the trick, but I agree with Mr-Marmora-lover that matching up chuffs and ding dongs is what it's all about because a guy who is big enough to reach a woman's g spot but who she can't accomodate fully cos she is too small is apparently just as bad for the guy, as the small guy is for the lady who wants more (or so I've been told - never had that problem myself being an accomodating kind of girl if warmed up properly).

I know exactly where my G-spot is thank you very much Mr MP.


The G-spot is a myth , myth was perpetuated by some up-their-own-arse, frigid, man-hating, elitist feminists like Koedt and Luce Irigary who wouldn't know an orgasm if it hit them in the face!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
    • Hello We are looking for a stroller lightweight pushchair to use on holidays etc. Our son is 18 months. Anyone looking to sell one? Thanks! 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...