Disgusting armpit hair on woman

the purple tin

Is this the student from Dublin who wrote the article in the newspaper?

B0jangles

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The reason women are less hairy is because their less hairy ancestors where more likely to mate. This changed their genetic make up. This pattern is the same in every country and every culture as well. Women are less hairy then men even naturally.

The inarguable, unbeatable BIOTRUTHS have arrived!

Logical Fallacy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The reason women are less hairy is because their less hairy ancestors where more likely to mate. This changed their genetic make up. This pattern is the same in every country and every culture as well. Women are less hairy then men even naturally.

Not really, women are less hairy because there is a direct correlation between the advent of secondary sex characteristics and testosterone.

saa

nts, I don't think women should be hairless but everything should be trimmed and at an appropriate lenght but that is my personal preferance trimmed but not bald - leave tiny white hairs alone unless they're under your lip and getting long, trimmed fingernails, keeping the end of the hair on your head trimmed and neat, armpit trimmed (Edit shaved would be a more appropriate description) but obviously stubble or very short hair is acceptable as the skin there is so delicate, leg hair can be shaved with an electric yoke and only smooth on special occaisions or done once a week if you please but the idea that a woman is completely hairless all the time is frankly ridiculous.

smithcity

old hippy wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the neanderthals? I'm sure Richard E Leakey, David Attenborough, Alice Roberts et al would disagree with you...

Homo Sapiens aren't descended from Neanderthals, they were a separate species of human that coexisted with modern humans for a short period. We shared a common ancestor but that's all.

Iwasfrozen

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not really, women are less hairy because there is a direct correlation between the advent of secondary sex characteristics and testosterone.

Exactly, the lack of hair was a trait that made a woman more likely to mate. This ment her genes were more likely to pass onto the next generation of women. So each generation of women where genetically predispositioned to be slightly less then the previous. The desire for lack of hair was either not present or much lower in the female populace so we are left with a direct correlation between sex and body hair or as you phrase it testosterone and body hair.

kowloon

And in the corner as I read this:

Make of it what you will.

smithcity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Exactly, the lack of hair was a trait that made a woman more likely to mate. This ment her genes were more likely to pass onto the next generation of women. So each generation of women where genetically predispositioned to be slightly less then the previous. The desire for lack of hair was either not present or much lower in the female populace so we are left with a direct correlation between sex and body hair or as you phrase it testosterone and body hair.

Are you suggesting that humans have evolved that significantly since the 70's/80's when more hair was common?

Logical Fallacy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Exactly, the lack of hair was a trait that made a woman more likely to mate. This ment her genes were more likely to pass onto the next generation of women. So each generation of women where genetically predispositioned to be slightly less then the previous. The desire for lack of hair was either not present or much lower in the female populace so we are left with a direct correlation between sex and body hair or as you phrase it testosterone and body hair.

I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. I also think you are applying a modern culture male preference to ancient, possible pre Homo-sapiens mating rituals/preferences.

I am unsure if I would be willing to commit to the idea that less body hair was an important decision in early human mating but would love to see any links you have on the matter.

KittyeeTrix

I could care less about the evolution and nature of womens hairy bodies versus mens hairy bodies..

I'll leave that to the ^^^^^"intelligents" above to trash out for the next few hours!!:rolleyes:

Personally, I didn't like the look of yer wans pits. Ain't no right nor wrong here. I thought they looked rank be that cos I'm conditioned to think/feel/react that way or whatever. I know they're not dirty or any of that nonsense that others may say but at the same time, to me, they didn't look right!!!

smash

Fizzlesque wrote: »

You wouldn't go out with me, because occasionally I'm not permanently 'groomed' - and I wouldn't go out with you (even on those occasions I am 'groomed') because your rigid views on 'what women should do' could possibly run deeper, and into scary territory eventually. Hope that makes sense - almost lunchtime and I'm starving, mightn't have expressed that as well as I could do.

Wow hold on there. A personal preference for women to shave body hair is not a view on 'what women should do', it's a view on what I like personally and what I find attractive. I've said before that it's each to their own.

And as for "could possibly run deeper, and into scary territory eventually", well it's not really a fair comment.

Iwasfrozen

smithcity wrote: »

Are you suggesting that humans have evolved that significantly since the 70's/80's when more hair was common?

No I'm suggesting it's been a preferred trait since pre history.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. I also think you are applying a modern culture male preference to ancient, possible pre Homo-sapiens mating rituals/preferences.



I am unsure if I would be willing to commit to the idea that less body hair was an important decision in early human mating but would love to see any links you have on the matter.

Yes I am. "Modern culture" as you call it, I'd prefare "human sexual behaviour" has it's origins in our evolutionary and biological make up. That much is an inescapable fact.

I sure do indeed. I know I know it's wikipedia, but they do reference what they say.

Wibbs

old hippy wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the neanderthals? I'm sure Richard E Leakey, David Attenborough, Alice Roberts et al would disagree with you...

Well we don't know if Neandertals were less or more hairy than us. The common perception is they were, but there's no evidence either way. Though they probably were as a cold adaptation. In any event as a hominid we are very much the odd ones out among our cousins who went before. So what went before is no great indication as to why we have certain features and they didn't. We have flat faces, chins and look more like juveniles than they did and likely less hair. All these were sexually selected for. The people with smaller brow ridges and bigger chins had more kids than those who didn't.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not really, women are less hairy because there is a direct correlation between the advent of secondary sex characteristics and testosterone.

Yes but Iwasfrozen does still have a point. Women are less hairy on average than men. It seems to have been sexually selected for that. Male secondary sexual characteristics include facial hair which outside rare genetic issues women do not. That men choose to shave off that characteristic is an interesting debate in of itself. Look at our nearest relatives, both males and females are equally hairy, yet a female chimp has much less testosterone than a male. Somewhere along the line we lost our body hair(thermoregulation/reduction of body parasites), but women lost significantly more. That was sexually selected for. Other sexual selection were things like permanently full breasts(apes are flat chested unless breast feeding). Add fashion and culture into the mix to highten those selections and you tend to get exaggeration of such features.

smithcity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No I'm suggesting it's been a preferred trait since pre history.

Based on what? From what I can tell, cultural preferences in that regard have changed frequently throughout history.

sbsquarepants

old hippy wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the neanderthals? I'm sure Richard E Leakey, David Attenborough, Alice Roberts et al would disagree with you...

Drool!
I for one fancy the pants off the good doctor. Though a million spider legs sticking out would probably change my mind!:D

Babybuff

I bet aliens have no body hair and they beamed down to earth and mated with the Neanderthals and produced homo sapiens, the semi hairy creature.

smithcity

Babybuff wrote: »

I bet aliens have no body hair

Tell that to Chewbacca

Babybuff

smithcity wrote: »

Tell that to Chewbacca

some other aliens.

look no hair

Wibbs

smithcity wrote: »

Homo Sapiens aren't descended from Neanderthals, they were a separate species of human that coexisted with modern humans for a short period. We shared a common ancestor but that's all.

Wellll..... not quite. More like a subspecies and if you're not an African chap or chapess you likely carry Neandertal DNA in you(If you're east Asian you carry even earlier stuff in your genes). We got jiggy with each other enough for some to survive down to this day.

Based on what? From what I can tell, cultural preferences in that regard have changed frequently throughout history.

Oh agreed 100%. The level of hirsuteness in women(and men) that's considered attractive is culturally biased, however the overall bias is for women to be less hairy than men and both to be less hairy overall. Some cultures just exaggerated that, or not. Ancient egyptian women were plucked within an inch of their lives. I gather they used honey in some way in hair removal. Arab women today are big into hair removal as a cultural thing. Europeans are among the hairiest peoples around today. Asians are less hairy, many of the men can't grow facial hair. Africans are less hairy too.

Iwasfrozen

smithcity wrote: »

Based on what? From what I can tell, cultural preferences in that regard have changed frequently throughout history.

Christ this is painful. The fact women are less hairy then men suggests that it is a preferred sexual triat in a woman. Women exhibiting this trait were more likely to mate. It obviously isn't a new development since if it was women would be as hairy as us and they aren't.

Logical Fallacy

Wibbs wrote: »

Wellll..... not quite. More like a subspecies and if you're not an African chap or chapess you likely carry Neandertal DNA in you(If you're east Asian you carry even earlier stuff in your genes). We got jiggy with each other enough for some to survive down to this day.

Oh agreed 100%. The level of hirsuteness in women(and men) that's considered attractive is culturally biased, however the overall bias is for women to be less hairy than men and both to be less hairy overall. Some cultures just exaggerated that, or not. Ancient egyptian women were plucked within an inch of their lives. I gather they used honey in some way in hair removal. Arab women today are big into hair removal as a cultural thing. Europeans are among the hairiest peoples around today. Asians are less hairy, many of the men can't grow facial hair. Africans are less hairy too.

This is quite true, a lot of my female friends would consider excess body hair on a bloke (back/shoulders etc) to be quite a turn off.

[obviously anecdotal]

tiny_penguin

smash wrote: »

Wow hold on there. A personal preference for women to shave body hair is not a view on 'what women should do', it's a view on what I like personally and what I find attractive. I've said before that it's each to their own.

And as for "could possibly run deeper, and into scary territory eventually", well it's not really a fair comment.

Thats not quite what you said - you said this

smash wrote: »

squeamish has nothing to do with it. I think how a women takes care of herself says a lot. I would consider grooming to be big deal to be honest.

Which implies if a woman does not do it then she does not take care of herself. To say you do not find it attractive is fine, to say women who dont conform to this do not take care of themselves and imply that have bad grooming practices is in a way saying what women should do.


I personally would not like to let my underarms that hairy - i think it would be uncomfortable, but in saying that i dont shave every day or even every week.It dries out my skin using cheap razors a lot and I cant afford the upkeep of even slightly more expensive razors. My legs I only shave when they are on show - and yes this is to conform to what society says is the norm and I do think they look unattractive if on show hairy - though if i saw a woman with hairy legs i prob wouldnt even comment/notice.

My boyfriend doesnt care - i asked him once and he said he didnt even notice when they are hairy. I still consider myself to look after myself - as would my boyfriend - but I guess everyone has different standards.

smithcity

Babybuff wrote: »

some other aliens.

look no hair

I dunno, the one on the left has some mean dreadlocks.

Wibbs wrote: »

Wellll..... not quite. More like a subspecies and if you're not an African chap or chapess you likely carry Neandertal DNA in you(If you're east Asian you carry even earlier stuff in your genes). We got jiggy with each other enough for some to survive down to this day.

True enough, I've heard figures of 3 to 4 % of our DNA comes down from Neanderthals but as you say this was through interbreeding with rather than evolving from them.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It obviously isn't a new development since if it was women would be as hairy as us and they aren't.

True, but then it might get interesting if you took a naturally hairless Asian man and a naturally more hairy European woman. Actually the woman at the centre of this probably has more body hair than many Asian men.

Logical Fallacy wrote:

This is quite true, a lot of my female friends would consider excess body hair on a bloke (back/shoulders etc) to be quite a turn off.

[obviously anecdotal]

Yep, hairy male backs tend to be a no no IME alright and you don't see too many very hairy men represented in art throughout the ages. The 70's has a lot to answer for regarding both genders

smithcity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Christ this is painful. The fact women are less hairy then men suggests that it is a preferred sexual triat in a woman. Women exhibiting this trait were more likely to mate. It obviously isn't a new development since if it was women would be as hairy as us and they aren't.

I don't see how less hair as a preferred trait translates to shaving all "excess" body hair? If you follow that logic to it's conclusion, women with shaved heads would be the most sexually appealing to men.

smash

tiny_penguin wrote: »

Which implies if a woman does not do it then she does not take care of herself. To say you do not find it attractive is fine, to say women who dont conform to this do not take care of themselves and imply that have bad grooming practices is in a way saying what women should do.

.......

but I guess everyone has different standards.

That's it in a nutshell to be honest.

Iwasfrozen

smithcity wrote: »

I don't see how less hair as a preferred trait translates to shaving all "excess" body hair? If you follow that logic to it's conclusion, women with shaved heads would be the most sexually appealing to men.

Because it's body hair that men find unnatractive not head hair.

smithcity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it's body hair that men find unnatractive not head hair.

Your argument still falls down though, because evolution has naturally left body hair in the areas where they will function in their role of pheromone delivery. Shaving it off for aesthetic reasons negates its biological function, so it's one step forward and one step back, in evolutionary terms.

jaffacakesyum

smash wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell to be honest.

Sorry to butt in here but you didn't really respond to tinypenguin's point.

It's absolutely fine if you have personal preference for a hairless woman, and to not find women who don't shave attractive. I'm actually with you on that one. My personal preference for women would be those who shave/wax, although I wouldn't make quite as big a deal of it as some posters on here.

But to say women are disgusting, aren't taking care of themselves, aren't grooming, just because they don't shave is a pretty offensive stand point.

How would you feel if women starting telling men what they have to do to conform to society? Men who grow beards wouldn't be deemed disgusting or not taking care of themselves. Why is leg and underarm hair disgusting on women but not men?

I just think the extreme reactions are ridiculous on this thread. My personal preference for women is no/little underarm, leg and genital hair. But I wouldn't call them disgusting if they had it. And I certainly wouldn't assume they don't take pride in their appearance or take care of themselves because of it.

Logical Fallacy

smithcity wrote: »

Your argument still falls down though, because evolution has naturally left body hair in the areas where they will function in their role of pheromone delivery. Shaving it off for aesthetic reasons negates its biological function, so it's one step forward and one step back, in evolutionary terms.

Well you could put forth the argument that we are moving away from an importance of older functions in order to pick partners and supplanting them with newer ones.

fishy fishy

smash wrote: »

well not shaving is not grooming. As for not taking care, well that's a matter of opinion too. In my eyes if you've decided to be hairy then it means you're either lazy or don't really care much about your appearance.

two for one sale at specsavers - take advantage while the going's good :D

oakleafsfree

reading from teddy boys thread...its all in the same vein....some of the men , boys etc...commenting on the looks. well there own dreams of it, anyway....but not one of the whingeing males actually sharing any knowledge of how to play the violin on us females....so few men and boys really dont know how to pleasure a female...total sensory boom!!! the guys dont know how to chat and really flirt and tease with just their language....why is that? i think your just conditioned incorrectley....thats all...all on the looks, and what you little boys expect in your own dreamworld, when really, totally rubbish at giving any female all over sensory pleasure. And i dont have a problem with any males in general....my personal complaint is....to many chaps are completely inept inbetween the sheets. you l have sons yoursel one day..so the consensus is that....you wernt getting it how you wanted it,i.e..unshaven or shaven knuckles.. so you go and pay for it... or watch porn or strippers etc, to errrrr get you going...so that means you dont even know your own body parts or even what to do with any body bit of your own...your emasculating yourselfs. god help your sons...no knowledge taught to chaps anywhere is there?!! i v got standards too.... i want too...all your daughters, mothers, wifes...probably taking on lovers. by the way teddy boy... you whined with another chap on here about my post. made me chuckle. quick to gang and corral...but not confident in your own self man worth...for a worthy reply. definately older than me.. not a gentleman either?! but you want a female to be harried into your idea of beauty...but is there any females on this thread..whineing on yours or any mans physical aspects? or as putridly vehemently a yours? no!! think you need to stop chatting rubbish...far too much time on your hands...and put your standards in action. i l watch.. and i l mark you and ask the poor female to fill in a complaint form and then mark you as ...MAAAN or silly boy (who s really impotent, frustrated with lack of female attention or just rubbish in bed)

oakleafsfree

oakleafsfree wrote: »

reading from teddy boys thread...its all in the same vein....some of the men , boys etc...commenting on the looks. well there own dreams of it, anyway....but not one of the whingeing males actually sharing any knowledge of how to play the violin on us females....so few men and boys really dont know how to pleasure a female...total sensory boom!!! the guys dont know how to chat and really flirt and tease with just their language....why is that? i think your just conditioned incorrectley....thats all...all on the looks, and what you little boys expect in your own dreamworld, when really, totally rubbish at giving any female all over sensory pleasure. And i dont have a problem with any males in general....my personal complaint is....to many chaps are completely inept inbetween the sheets. you l have sons yoursel one day..so the consensus is that....you wernt getting it how you wanted it,i.e..unshaven or shaven knuckles.. so you go and pay for it... or watch porn or strippers etc, to errrrr get you going...so that means you dont even know your own body parts or even what to do with any body bit of your own...your emasculating yourselfs. god help your sons...no knowledge taught to chaps anywhere is there?!! i v got standards too.... i want too...all your daughters, mothers, wifes...probably taking on lovers. by the way teddy boy... you whined with another chap on here about my post. made me chuckle. quick to gang and corral...but not confident in your own self man worth...for a worthy reply. definately older than me.. not a gentleman either?! but you want a female to be harried into your idea of beauty...but is there any females on this thread..whineing on yours or any mans physical aspects? or as putridly vehemently a yours? no!! think you need to stop chatting rubbish...far too much time on your hands...and put your standards in action. i l watch.. and i l mark you and ask the poor female to fill in a complaint form and then mark you as ...MAAAN or silly boy (who s really impotent, frustrated with lack of female attention or just rubbish in bed)

Mainly English lads yeah?

smithcity

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Well you could put forth the argument that we are moving away from an importance of older functions in order to pick partners and supplanting them with newer ones.

You could of course make that argument, but aesthetic preferences can change on a whim of fashion from decade to decade or from one generation to the next whereas the argument that "Iwasfrozen" is making, is that the aesthetic preferences are biological evolution in action, which simply doesn't work that way.
In fact, it would have the opposite effect, if women all chose to shave their body hair, selection of genes would play no part in sexual trait preferences.

Iwasfrozen

smithcity wrote: »

Your argument still falls down though, because evolution has naturally left body hair in the areas where they will function in their role of pheromone delivery. Shaving it off for aesthetic reasons negates its biological function, so it's one step forward and one step back, in evolutionary terms.

Nope because modern developments like perfume and deoderent have made them obsolete.

Ruralyoke

Listen up.

There's a time and a place for sensible "debate"

This needs to be settled - hairy armpits, vulvas and anuses (anii?) are deadly.

End of.

:P

smithcity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope because modern developments like perfume and deoderent have made them obsolete.

Not if you factor in the musks used to enhance or simulate pheromones. Look up white deer musk.

Iwasfrozen

smithcity wrote: »

Not if you factor in the musks used to enhance or simulate pheromones. Look up white deer musk.

Well then there's your answer another reason why we can have our cake and eat it. No hairy ladies and we don't have to sacrifice the pheromones.

Logical Fallacy

oakleafsfree wrote: »

reading from teddy boys thread...its all in the same vein....some of the men , boys etc...commenting on the looks. well there own dreams of it, anyway....but not one of the whingeing males actually sharing any knowledge of how to play the violin on us females....so few men and boys really dont know how to pleasure a female...total sensory boom!!! the guys dont know how to chat and really flirt and tease with just their language....why is that? i think your just conditioned incorrectley....thats all...all on the looks, and what you little boys expect in your own dreamworld, when really, totally rubbish at giving any female all over sensory pleasure. And i dont have a problem with any males in general....my personal complaint is....to many chaps are completely inept inbetween the sheets. you l have sons yoursel one day..so the consensus is that....you wernt getting it how you wanted it,i.e..unshaven or shaven knuckles.. so you go and pay for it... or watch porn or strippers etc, to errrrr get you going...so that means you dont even know your own body parts or even what to do with any body bit of your own...your emasculating yourselfs. god help your sons...no knowledge taught to chaps anywhere is there?!! i v got standards too.... i want too...all your daughters, mothers, wifes...probably taking on lovers. by the way teddy boy... you whined with another chap on here about my post. made me chuckle. quick to gang and corral...but not confident in your own self man worth...for a worthy reply. definately older than me.. not a gentleman either?! but you want a female to be harried into your idea of beauty...but is there any females on this thread..whineing on yours or any mans physical aspects? or as putridly vehemently a yours? no!! think you need to stop chatting rubbish...far too much time on your hands...and put your standards in action. i l watch.. and i l mark you and ask the poor female to fill in a complaint form and then mark you as ...MAAAN or silly boy (who s really impotent, frustrated with lack of female attention or just rubbish in bed)

In all fairness, from an originality point of view this is good. You normally get the bog standard "I'm a full of **** male" trolling AH, nice to see at least the guise of a female poster doing that.

Equal rights and all.

smash

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

But to say women are disgusting, aren't taking care of themselves, aren't grooming, just because they don't shave is a pretty offensive stand point.

Shall we go over my posts again?

"I think how a women takes care of herself says a lot. I would consider grooming to be big deal to be honest."

"not shaving is not grooming. As for not taking care, well that's a matter of opinion too. In my eyes if you've decided to be hairy then it means you're either lazy or don't really care much about your appearance."

"What difference does it make what I do? We're talking about women here. Women that don't shave their legs, armpits, whatever... In my opinion it is disgusting and in my opinion it is not taking care of oneself because it's not trying to look your best. It takes little effort and makes a big difference."

I stated that I consider shaving to be grooming, and grooming to be part of taking care of your appearance and that in my opinion women with hairy armpits or legs does disgust me. It's a big turn off. And I'm not talking about stubble, I'm talking about proper hair. I just think it's gross to look at or touch.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

How would you feel if women starting telling men what they have to do to conform to society? Men who grow beards wouldn't be deemed disgusting or not taking care of themselves. Why is leg and underarm hair disgusting on women but not men?

I just think the extreme reactions are ridiculous on this thread. My personal preference for women is no/little underarm, leg and genital hair. But I wouldn't call them disgusting if they had it. And I certainly wouldn't assume they don't take pride in their appearance or take care of themselves because of it.

Why do I find it disgusting? Simple answer really... Because it's not my preference, it's the opposite of my preference. Everyone's entitled to a preference! A lot of women here find it disgusting too, I don't know why I'm being targeted out for an answer.

smithcity

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well then there's your answer another reason why we can have our cake and eat it. No hairy ladies and we don't have to sacrifice the pheromones.

Fair enough, as long as you don't blame it on evolution!

oakleafsfree

i wont watch... just your language alone is ..making me want to grow my extra curly , wiry, multicoloured underarm hair...force your face into it...and for me to smack my heaving chest... and roar!!! i m so tickled. Your self emasculation...thanks.chuckling!!! so ..does that mean, you v diassapointed your other half? many times over the years..?? not satisfied her? not even multiples? ok how about sitting in your lap and just kissing for like for ever....you sound so quarter of a glass full. have a good evening..

Chuck Stone

Teddy O' Teddson's type of girl here.

Shenshen wrote: »

No woman likes to get pubic hair into her mouth.

How the hell would that happen?

Explain it to me. :mad:

smash

oakleafsfree wrote: »

i wont watch... just your language alone is ..making me want to grow my extra curly , wiry, multicoloured underarm hair...force your face into it...and for me to smack my heaving chest... and roar!!! i m so tickled. Your self emasculation...thanks.chuckling!!! so ..does that mean, you v diassapointed your other half? many times over the years..?? not satisfied her? not even multiples? ok how about sitting in your lap and just kissing for like for ever....you sound so quarter of a glass full. have a good evening..

I think you left out a full stop there somewhere.

Logical Fallacy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Teddy O' Teddson's type of girl here.



How the hell would that happen?

Explain it to me. :mad:

When a man and a woman love each other very much....

smash

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How the hell would that happen?

Explain it to me. :mad:

teabag?

Iwasfrozen

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

When a man and a woman love each other very much....

haha, brilliant.

Iwasfrozen

oakleafsfree wrote: »

i wont watch... just your language alone is ..making me want to grow my extra curly , wiry, multicoloured underarm hair...force your face into it...and for me to smack my heaving chest... and roar!!! i m so tickled. Your self emasculation...thanks.chuckling!!! so ..does that mean, you v diassapointed your other half? many times over the years..?? not satisfied her? not even multiples? ok how about sitting in your lap and just kissing for like for ever....you sound so quarter of a glass full. have a good evening..

Sexy, but who were you even talking to there?

kowloon

A hint at one possibility

sbsquarepants

Ruralyoke wrote: »

This needs to be settled - hairy armpits, vulvas and anuses (anii?) are deadly.


:P

They are disgusting, i'll give you that, but they won't kill you!:D