#2 2009-03-22 10:50:22
Feh. The idea of your mother jacking you off three times a week should be enough for years of therapy. There is a condition (the name escapes me presently, but it is not phimosis) by which the urethra and adjacent tissues are somewhat shorter during normal growth than the rest of the penis. This can result in a curve to either side, downward, or--in this case--upward. Normal fapping eventually resolves most cases, but many men go through life with a bent cock, without any functional difficulty. Some women, in fact, like a dick that can stimulate them in different ways (and an upward bend would almost certainly rub the clit more often). If he turns out gay, great. He can hit the prostate with every stroke.
That said, the mother's "intervention" is utterly inappropriate, particularly on a 19 year-old. Get thee hence to a urologist and have the condition (and various remedies, if any) explained, so that this "massage therapy" can be discontinued immediately. Grody.
Offline
#3 2009-03-22 12:34:08
pALEPHx wrote:
Some women, in fact, like a dick that can stimulate them in different ways (and an upward bend would almost certainly rub the clit more often).
I believe you mean the g-spot.
Queers talking about the vaginal region are always good for a cheap laugh.
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-03-22 12:35:10)
Offline
#4 2009-03-22 14:24:13
pALEPHx wrote:
If he turns out gay, great. He can hit the prostate with every stroke.
JLP already pointed out your hetero gaffe so I will ask, as the resident physician round these heyah pots, you to explain your geh sex to us.
How often are bottoms on their backs "missionary style" during homosexual intercourse? I ask because an upward bend to a penis would not stimulate the prostate during rear entry or doggy style relations.
Offline
#5 2009-03-22 15:23:05
We're talking about something relatively pliant here, right? I mean, the guy isn't dead and rigor mortis hasn't set in, so what's the problem? The fucking problem, literally? I mean, it's like that song, "love goes where my rosemary goes ", isn't it?
ps by the way the mother is seriously fucking twisted
Last edited by icangetyouatoe (2009-03-22 15:23:40)
Offline
#6 2009-03-22 16:48:18
icangetyouatoe wrote:
We're talking about something relatively pliant here, right? I mean, the guy isn't dead and rigor mortis hasn't set in, so what's the problem? The fucking problem, literally? I mean, it's like that song, "love goes where my rosemary goes ", isn't it?
ps by the way the mother is seriously fucking twisted
What the lovely Toe said. Mom needs to be tagged, and put on a wild animal reserve.
Offline
#7 2009-03-22 20:51:16
Scotty wrote:
How often are bottoms on their backs "missionary style" during homosexual intercourse? I ask because an upward bend to a penis would not stimulate the prostate during rear entry or doggy style relations.
Look at some gay porn, and you tell me. From what I've seen, gays will be face-up about half the time, the rest left to various other positions. You want to be able to kiss your partner, see his face, that sort of thing, just the same as "missionary style," except you have to be a little bit cautious about mashing balls...unless your lover likes that sort of thing.
Offline
#8 2009-03-23 01:33:23
"mashed balls"... sounds like potatoes to me.
Offline
#9 2009-03-23 01:43:10
Dmtdust wrote:
"mashed balls"... sounds like potatoes to me.
Perhaps you're thinking of Bangers and Mash?
Offline
#10 2009-03-23 07:35:13
tojo2000 wrote:
Dmtdust wrote:
"mashed balls"... sounds like potatoes to me.
Perhaps you're thinking of Bangers and Mash?
Offline
#11 2009-03-23 12:00:50
Human beings were just made to fit one inside the other, no matter what gender combination and no matter which body part. I wouldn't be surprised if they someday discover traces of ancient "fold here" instructions on primordial skeletons from when we used to origami one another.
Last edited by icangetyouatoe (2009-03-23 12:11:09)
Offline
#12 2009-03-23 12:41:51
Dmtdust wrote:
icangetyouatoe wrote:
We're talking about something relatively pliant here, right? I mean, the guy isn't dead and rigor mortis hasn't set in, so what's the problem? The fucking problem, literally? I mean, it's like that song, "love goes where my rosemary goes ", isn't it?
ps by the way the mother is seriously fucking twistedWhat the lovely Toe said. Mom needs to be tagged, and put on a wild animal reserve.
Ok, I'll tag 'er.
Offline
#13 2009-03-29 02:18:24
pALEPHx wrote:
Scotty wrote:
How often are bottoms on their backs "missionary style" during homosexual intercourse? I ask because an upward bend to a penis would not stimulate the prostate during rear entry or doggy style relations.
Look at some gay porn, and you tell me. From what I've seen, gays will be face-up about half the time, the rest left to various other positions. You want to be able to kiss your partner, see his face, that sort of thing, just the same as "missionary style," except you have to be a little bit cautious about mashing balls...unless your lover likes that sort of thing.
Face-to-face = "the buck," as in "I put his act in the buck."
Offline
#14 2009-03-29 10:00:45
pALEPHx wrote:
Look at some gay porn, and you tell me.
I'll take your word for it.
From what I've seen, gays will be face-up about half the time, the rest left to various other positions.
Are you talking about geh pr0n? I would think you would have first hand experience.
You want to be able to kiss your partner, see his face, that sort of thing, just the same as "missionary style," except you have to be a little bit cautious about mashing balls
Wait, you people actually have feelings? I just thought it was sodomy for sodomy's sake.
...unless your lover likes that sort of thing.
TMI.
Offline
#15 2009-03-29 22:57:13
Scotty wrote:
TMI.
Too Many Inquiries.
One would think that denizens of this board have been exposed to every sort of porn imaginable. Is a little man-on-man action that much more intolerable than sheep fucking, horse blowing, and little Japanese girls with fountains of diarrhea splashing down on their faces? Excuses, excuses.
Offline
#16 2009-03-30 01:56:29
pALEPHx wrote:
Scotty wrote:
TMI.
Too Many Inquiries.
One would think that denizens of this board have been exposed to every sort of porn imaginable. Is a little man-on-man action that much more intolerable than sheep fucking, horse blowing, and little Japanese girls with fountains of diarrhea splashing down on their faces? Excuses, excuses.
Yeah, I mean, show me that girl shooting out a couple gallons of diarrhea while inverted in the tub all day but don't you dare show me a man's penis, you sick fuck!!!
By the way, none of you really believe this "mommy jerkin son's gerkin" is anything but trolling, do you?
Offline
#17 2009-03-30 07:57:19
pALEPHx wrote:
One would think that denizens of this board have been exposed to every sort of porn imaginable. Is a little man-on-man action that much more intolerable than sheep fucking, horse blowing, and little Japanese girls with fountains of diarrhea splashing down on their faces? Excuses, excuses.
Exposure levels are not prolonged in this case. Exposed is one thing, Alex DeLarge'd is another.
Offline
#18 2009-03-30 08:13:01
ptah13 wrote:
By the way, none of you really believe this "mommy jerkin son's gerkin" is anything but trolling, do you?
I do believe you are right. I guess at some point we will run out of the truly twisted on the internets and have to resort to a mass suspending of disbelief when we move to an all trolls all the time format.
Offline
#19 2009-03-30 17:49:55
Scotty wrote:
Exposure levels are not prolonged in this case. Exposed is one thing, Alex DeLarge'd is another.
Or isn't that the sometime purpose of the NSFW thread? If we didn't have certain people posting the occasional raft of softcore pics of nude girls, it would be utterly devoid of meaning, right? You don't see similar pictures of men, at least none that aren't engaged in some form of atrocious sex act, like dangling from the ceiling by a hook in their taint. It isn't equal opportunity voyeurism.
Not that the women and gay men of HS hold enough sway to make it the staple of any thread (nor is it what I come here for), but it would seem that more people are afraid of a simple nude male than the female equivalent (shaved pussies, underage come-hither looks an' all). No one said there had to be active buttfucking to even the score. Besides, I don't think I really want to see what straight men find as representative of the act.
Offline
#20 2009-05-19 13:52:43
I expected the first word of every paragraph to spell out "you just lost the game" :(
Also, there's an inside clitoris too according to wikipedia. The more you know.
Offline
