SirBillybob

Try describing your situation, if you like, as you are not shy but the details are ambiguous, and as the first sentence could apply as anybody’s hypothetical. This is also a jokey thread. Of course the fun is fine. But you also have the option to ask questions in the Health subforum by creating a topic on male sexual response.

Was all this in the den with cuckolded Papa Bear critiquing the fucking honey technique but suddenly taking a nap?

All seems like a checkered box sitch.

It’s the load bearing; structural cheques called for.

I watched two hot studs flip fcuk and only had time and choreographic creativity for one in the threelipede to blow me while railed.

Not a lab, just a lair dressed up for research grant funds. Pee-er review not forthcumming.

I haven’t observed bigger dicks to make an impression. Perhaps there will eventually be moral of them to judge.

That’s what I was getting at. U know the bear facts. They don’t give anyone a boner. I just didn’t add that the bone to vascular tissue ratio is 0:100. It ends at the pubic bone. That is still relative as indicated. Was it lost? IDK the evolutionary trajectory. I suppose that penile rods approximate other primates’ penis bone structure.

Shot? Duck? Sounds like intro figure skating move ‘shoot the duck’, likely not malininized for Cortina.

Ancestral female sexual satisfaction did not figure prominently in mate selection. Just ask Wilma and Betty. Also the relative proportion of penis bone to penis corpus cavernosum varies among primates, and it may be that the higher proportion of vascular tissue relative to bone in the human male penis naturally selected for larger size in order to improve genital stability during intercourse, etc. Bigger dicks require less backbone. Perhaps this also tracks somewhat with penile rod implant procedures.

I try to find ones with substance.

Best advice, by far, I’ve had this year.

I watched it sitting in a lounge chair as I’m in South American summer, with a clean bill of health.

At 50 he must love to hate. A skinflint and cronies so committed to trending to cheat-a-GdeP thrift yet he’s one more than zero, using currency plurals correctly when grammatical not monetary. Are those Finnish saunas? Tradition dictates he should go jump in the lake. Wet stories; bone-dry charisma.

Not as lucky as yours dipped in whine. Cue spellcheck.

Tap end … a who tapped that of whomever’s end reference? Is the faucet dripping and refusing to shut off?

You are being absurd if liking what you like puts you in a chromosomally triggered state without judicious venue sorting. “All-male performances — women welcome every day, all the time.” All patrons subject to the same behavioural expectations. Complaining about women being there isn’t protecting your space; it’s failing a reading comprehension test and calling the resulting misogynistic entitlement a principle. In contrast, the baths on the same block are gay male coded and accommodate the exclusivity. Police gender there, misogynistically exculpatory. Or make a private party and host a stripper; he likely won’t be gay but one of the “guys”. Sometimes you just roll with things, like tolerating the old punter at Campus, ostensibly not an OF influencer but gender indeterminate due to poor lighting, having possibly left behind their toque or scarf along with other DNA in the cubicle, later barging into your private dance to search for it.😏

I didn’t view it, but misogynistic is the punters on this board gunning for banning female adults from supporting male stripper clubs in Montreal. They aren’t OF attention-grabbing. Campus is co-ed, ladies. Mingle and everybody get over it.

This, and … Online trolls mistake noise for power, bruising reputation in the moment, but failing to touch its substance. Reputation is a fragile proxy for what is real about a person, easily distorted, often overrated. What endures isn’t what sad silly strangers crap out of their pie holes about you, but what you consistently do and stand for. Trolls trade in rumour to distract attention about their deficiencies. Durable worth compounds quietly; board rep rankings underscore this idea. —- Best not disabuse @n…………..y of the naïve distorted belief that he was actually treated well overall by gluttonously attention-grabbing hair-on-fire punter Karen in this hypothetical hobby risk management scenario? Only serve hot meals?

Were you b-ouncing after you b-ounced?

In simpler terms, was it conventionally healthy food? I consume plenty of leafy greens quite quickly and quickly obtained.

So nobody else actually reads the 50 page paper that takes about an hour to rifle through, yet somebody posts in a few sentences what is actually contained in the paper and its disconnect from the actual distorted reporting that inadvertently had steered commentary here in a way that further falsifies the actual paper content, and it hurts a reader’s head? What a typical emoticon zinger. 10 lashes for the paper appraisal attempt disloyal to the topic. Sheesh.

Thanks. No, Karen is a regular hirer and describer of same, but is not outed in terms of ID. Karen outs the provider by assuming nobody else recognizes him in the photos Karen posts, yet he is drawn from a non-online provider pool that several fellow punters share. It is assumed the provider wouid object to the unflattering gossip about him, and he posts the same trip photos not aware of the gossip posted about him in a public domain. The fellow punter posts a caution for everybody in terms of the risks of outing and it getting back to the provider; it’s a small world, etc messaging. I believe you endorse (b) and or the similar (c). Everybody is simply reminded to be discreet and apply guardrails without needing to be deprived of the enjoyment of posting hire stories. (a) is a scenario where Karen makes it her mission to assert having been outed, to warn board members that the caution suggested by the board peer was actually outing Karen and making Karen anxious about future hire diaries, and to label the board peer as somebody predisposed to outing anybody, yet Karen in possession of no evidence (“receipts”) of same. The assumption about the peer evolves as fact among elements of the chatroom board membership. Anybody for (a)? Other thoughts and comments?

Mice when it works, for them. …