Boob flashing v Dick flashing

EmmetSpiceland

lawred2 wrote: »

The Simpson's mouth?

Wut!?

Specifically Homer Simpson’s. I believe some might know it as an “innie”.

I read somewhere before that there are three, distinct, ways a vagina can look. A ham sandwich, an over-stuffed ham sandwich or a “Simpson’s mouth”. Obviously, you can substitute roast beef for ham if you so desire.

A lot of guys can get too hung up on the neat side of the “Simpson’s mouth” but I do see anything wrong with enjoying the more “meatier” ones. Some of them should just be grateful they’ve been let within a sniff of one.

shaneon77

lawred2 wrote: »

The Simpson's mouth?

Wut!?

recently sent to me and I was wondering if I would ever get a chance to use it.

NeinNeinNein

Does it help to try not to think of Homer during the act?

jester77

The post makes no sense, you are not even comparing like with like. Lots of men go around topless and few complain.

If someone drops their pants, then it's considered indecent regardless of whether they are male or female.

EmmetSpiceland

NeinNeinNein wrote: »

Does it help to try not to think of Homer during the act?

You’re fine once you don’t get the lady in question to draw the rest of Homer’s face around it.

Generally, when you’re getting “down to it” the angle doesn’t work for the “Simpson’s mouth” anyway.

Just try not to use any catchphrases. Might put you off.

shaneon77

shaneon77 wrote: »

recently sent to me and I was wondering if I would ever get a chance to use it.

Where did my pic go? Is it off the approved list?

Stevieluvsye

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You’re fine once you don’t get the lady in question to draw the rest of Homer’s face around it.

Generally, when you’re getting “down to it” the angle doesn’t work for the “Simpson’s mouth” anyway.

Just try not to use any catchphrases. Might put you off.

Slightly off topic but i remember once having some fun time with a young lass who had a tattoo of some lad with a lawnmower downtown

Remember thinking it looked cool at the time

EmmetSpiceland

shaneon77 wrote: »

Where did my pic go? Is it off the approved list?

Ah now, that’s more of a “camel toe”, or possibly a “moose knuckle”.

The “Simpson’s mouth” is for the neat little “innies”, not “gellies”.

greenspurs

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The primary function of the mammary glands is to nourish offspring. They are not sexual in reality, just intricatedly linked with femininity.

Why do sooo many ladies get boob jobs then ?
Does that improve milk production ?? :rolleyes:

Dr. Bre

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Slightly off topic but i remember once having some fun time with a young lass who had a tattoo of some lad with a lawnmower downtown

Remember thinking it looked cool at the time

Some bush that needed trimming..

Stevieluvsye

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Some bush that needed trimming..

It looked the part.

Actually when i think of her now, she was savage. One of these that is looking for another jump two minutes after you blew your first load

BeerWolf

Flash your Moobs if you're that concerned OP.

Feisar

greenspurs wrote: »

Why do sooo many ladies get boob jobs then ?
Does that improve milk production ?? :rolleyes:

The roll eyes, almost as offensive as flashing a raging horn.

nthclare

Only if you're over 40 you'll understand....

I remember year's ago going on school tour and we always had the mooners, who'd flash their arse out the back window.....

Back in those days it was considered a bit of fun, this was back in Catholic Ireland where people laughed at this...

Then in the 80's you'd the local flashers, and a few of our mum's were flashed at, I remember my mum and her friend Mari laughing about getting flashed at, Mari RIP and mum were saying we must bring Joan up for a walk she'll get a fright but Joan thought it was funny too.

Supposedly in Catholic Ireland we were all stuck up about sex, being honest they weren't.

And the time's a rubber Johnnie would be seen somewhere.

After school we'd all stop and look at the Jonnie like a pilgrimage to the rubber Johnnie....
After a few weeks it was all crinkled up...
But that fallic symbol was like a pilgrimage to us lads in the 80's a load of 12 year olds looking at the Johnnie

Now before any sanctimonious knobs have anything smart to say or get offended by this post.
My message to you is go fck yourself...

And then there was the porn mags, that was another pilgrimage... some one would dump porn mags and we'd leave them there, because it was like another pilgrimage...

We'd not move the magazine's and they'ed stay there until the fade with the weather....

We all were not damaged or influenced by these things, it was just a skit and lads growing up...

Oh how time's have changed....

Hail the rubber Johnnie and porn stash...

NeinNeinNein

Frenchies and skin mags.

Zorya

They were more real times in a way, nth clare.
I remember finding a porn stash when I was about 16 (girl). It was a hotel manager's stash, he was a youngish guy and very elegant, handsome, cosmopolitan. I was staying in the hotel worker's digs temporarily for a weekend as they weree going to get me other accommodation and he had been staying in that room previously, and there was a big black plastic bag left in one corner of the room. Im talking hundreds of magazines from Europe. I had just left a small rural town to go to work in the big city the summer pre college. Completely wide eyed and really innocent even compared to my peers. Had never drank or had a boyfriend as I was very shy and nerdy. It was an informative weekend. I really studied what was on offer! Though I must say the magazines would be considered very vanilla nowadays. They showed everything but very nicely. I do pity young girls now with so many lads hooked into crazy porn. I have read that girls are suffering because of it - more choking, compulsion to do anal, more abusive violent sex. Yuck.

nthclare

nthclare wrote: »

some one would dump porn mags and we'd leave them there, because it was like another pilgrimage...

Which was a thing for some reason. A few friends and I found (almost said came across, but I'm not going to make it that easy for ye) a stash of old mags in a ditch up an old passage (okay, that one's free) and thought it was amazing. We were about 11. One guy was disgusted, so me and another guy were like, Yeah, and look at this page it's even more disgusting, I wonder how disgusting the next page will be... :pac:

The funny thing was the genius that threw it away threw them away in an envelope... an envelope with his name and address on it. :pac:

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

I remember finding a porn stash when I was about 16 (girl). It was a hotel manager's stash, he was a youngish guy and very elegant, handsome, cosmopolitan. I was staying in the hotel worker's digs temporarily for a weekend as they weree going to get me other accommodation and he had been staying in that room previously, and there was a big black plastic bag left in one corner of the room. Im talking hundreds of magazines from Europe. I had just left a small rural town to go to work in the big city the summer pre college. Completely wide eyed and really innocent even compared to my peers. Had never drank or had a boyfriend as I was very shy and nerdy. It was an informative weekend. I really studied what was on offer!

Okay, up to that point I thought I was reading an "article" from one of those magazines :pac: The anti-climax was palpable

Bobblehats

Mammary gland v penial gland

Annurca Apples

Zorya wrote: »

They were more real times in a way, nth clare.
I remember finding a porn stash when I was about 16 (girl). It was a hotel manager's stash, he was a youngish guy and very elegant, handsome, cosmopolitan. I was staying in the hotel worker's digs temporarily for a weekend as they weree going to get me other accommodation and he had been staying in that room previously, and there was a big black plastic bag left in one corner of the room. Im talking hundreds of magazines from Europe. I had just left a small rural town to go to work in the big city the summer pre college. Completely wide eyed and really innocent even compared to my peers. Had never drank or had a boyfriend as I was very shy and nerdy. It was an informative weekend. I really studied what was on offer! Though I must say the magazines would be considered very vanilla nowadays. They showed everything but very nicely. I do pity young girls now with so many lads hooked into crazy porn. I have read that girls are suffering because of it - more choking, compulsion to do anal, more abusive violent sex. Yuck.

Hope they weren't too sticky.

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, up to that point I thought I was reading an "article" from one of those magazines :pac: The anti-climax was palpable

I like a story to have a sting in the tail

lleti

jester77 wrote: »

The post makes no sense, you are not even comparing like with like. Lots of men go around topless and few complain.

If someone drops their pants, then it's considered indecent regardless of whether they are male or female.

If a woman touches a man on the chest it's ok but if a man did the same it's sexual assault. It's not comparable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

fash wrote: »

Not exactly. The primary reason for the size of breasts is sexual signaling. The requirements for feeding offspring is much smaller- see female orangutan breasts for what breasts would look like is feeding offspring was the sole determining criterion.

But some women have very small boobs. I mean, really small. Smaller than orang utans. Nipple and not much else. And those women are still considered attractive by many men as despite what popular culture tells us, sizeable boobs are not the be-all and end-all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But some women have very small boobs. I mean, really small. Smaller than orang utans. Nipple and not much else. And those women are still considered attractive by many men as despite what popular culture tells us, sizeable boobs are not the be-all and end-all.

That's not the point he (or I before that) was making.

Stevieluvsye

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But some women have very small boobs. I mean, really small. Smaller than orang utans. Nipple and not much else. And those women are still considered attractive by many men as despite what popular culture tells us, sizeable boobs are not the be-all and end-all.

Men seem to prioritise a certain part of a body that takes their fancy most. Leg's never did anything for me.


I do like to take a good bite out of a lovely arse though

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not the point he (or I before that) was making.

Actually, it is. He focused on size a lot. Reread his post - “the primary reason for the size of breasts...”. (emphasis mine)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Actually, it is. He focused on size a lot. Reread his post.

No, it's that human (female) breasts have more functions than breastfeeding - that they are for sexual arousal also. The proof of this is the relative size of breasts to what would be required for their primary function. You just read, big boobs are required for them to be sexually arousing.

The one thing he is wrong about (arguably) is that their primary function is for arousal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's that human (female) breasts have more functions than breastfeeding - that they are for sexual arousal also. The proof of this is the relative size of breasts to what would be required for their primary function. You just read, big boobs are required for them to be sexually arousing.

The one thing he is wrong about (arguably) is that their primary function is for arousal.

Obviously.

That poster said the primary function was as a sexual signifier. Not just of one of their functions but the primary function. And then pointed to the size of human breasts in comparison to those of those of an orang utan to back that point up. But many human breasts are smaller than that so it was not a good way to argue that being a sexual signifier is their primary function.

nthclare

Zorya wrote: »

They were more real times in a way, nth clare.
I remember finding a porn stash when I was about 16 (girl). It was a hotel manager's stash, he was a youngish guy and very elegant, handsome, cosmopolitan. I was staying in the hotel worker's digs temporarily for a weekend as they weree going to get me other accommodation and he had been staying in that room previously, and there was a big black plastic bag left in one corner of the room. Im talking hundreds of magazines from Europe. I had just left a small rural town to go to work in the big city the summer pre college. Completely wide eyed and really innocent even compared to my peers. Had never drank or had a boyfriend as I was very shy and nerdy. It was an informative weekend. I really studied what was on offer! Though I must say the magazines would be considered very vanilla nowadays. They showed everything but very nicely. I do pity young girls now with so many lads hooked into crazy porn. I have read that girls are suffering because of it - more choking, compulsion to do anal, more abusive violent sex. Yuck.

Different times back then, people had a sense of humour.

Sex was a bit taboo, but in my opinion Taboo adds a bit of naughtiness to Life

Especially if it's between two responsible adults and nobody's being hurt emotionally and it's a square deal.

The perpetually offended are actually just like the goody two shoes of year's ago...

Strident Catholicism and third wave femminisits and the looney left and alt right are all the same...

Just **** stirring knobs

nthclare

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Men seem to prioritise a certain part of a body that takes their fancy most. Leg's never did anything for me.


I do like to take a good bite out of a lovely arse though

I love shoulder's on a woman, and the back of the neck... with a sprinkling of freckles and that robin red Brest blood flow....in the front just below the neck....

Thant turns me on more than a pair of tits or a bare naked ass....

Redhead's have the moat amazing skin tones, it just really hits the fire in my DNA

Stevieluvsye

nthclare wrote: »

I love shoulder's on a woman, and the back of the neck... with a sprinkling of freckles and that robin red Brest blood flow....in the front just below the neck....

Thant turns me on more than a pair of tits or a bare naked ass....

Redhead's have the moat amazing skin tones, it just really hits the fire in my DNA

My point exactly.

One mate of mine is in to ears, another in to toes

Zorya

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

My point exactly.

One mate of mine is in to ears, another in to toes

But surely as part of the whole package. It would be a short affair if 'twas mostly about the ears.

Stevieluvsye

Zorya wrote: »

But surely as part of the whole package. It would be a short affair if 'twas mostly about the ears.

I agree. He was particular about ear lobes.

Who's to say that's weird though as i love an oul tongue rimming meself from the mrs

nthclare

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

I agree. He was particular about ear lobes.

Who's to say that's weird though as i love an oul tongue rimming meself from the mrs

All the better to hear you with, says the big bad wolf

Panthro

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Who's to say that's weird though as i love an oul tongue rimming meself from the mrs

This is wonderful information and i for one am a better person for knowing it.

Zorya

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

I agree. He was particular about ear lobes.

Who's to say that's weird though as i love an oul tongue rimming meself from the mrs

Sharing is caring Stevie.:o

Stevieluvsye

Panthro wrote: »

This is wonderful information and i for one am a better person for knowing it.

Thanks. Appreciate the support and knowing i have made a differance today

NeinNeinNein

An ear rimming?

Zorya

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Thanks. Appreciate the support and knowing i have made a differance today

You will have to spell difference differently though..

Stevieluvsye

NeinNeinNein wrote: »

An ear rimming?

Full tongue action inside and around the ear.

Highly recommend it

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But many human breasts are smaller than that so it was not a good way to argue that being a sexual signifier is their primary function.

Not as their primary function no, but signals a significant secondary one.

EmmetSpiceland

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Full tongue action inside and around the ear.

Highly recommend it

You should have said “ear” rimming there, S. Not that there’s anything wrong with a “regular” rimming. You know yourself.

Feisar

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You should have said “ear” rimming there, S. Not that there’s anything wrong with a “regular” rimming. You know yourself.

Pink eye. I'll do anything after a lock of stout however I feel licky licky bum bum is main stream/standard when it really shouldn't be. Definately something for after a good hot shower. Not when yer drunk at half two in the morning with a ONS.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Not as their primary function no, but signals a significant secondary one.

Well, I was addressing their point that it was a primary function so I didn’t miss their point, as you said I did.

Church on Tuesday

NeinNeinNein wrote: »

An ear rimming?

Ears are an erogenous zone.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I was addressing their point that it was a primary function so I didn’t miss their point, as you said I did.

If you simply pointed that out you would have been correct. 'Hey, Nth Clare, the Primary function of breasts is breastfeeding.' Simple. But, you went on about breast sizes, which was irrelevant to that point.

Stevieluvsye

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You should have said “ear” rimming there, S. Not that there’s anything wrong with a “regular” rimming. You know yourself.

That’s what I meant E

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

If you simply pointed that out you would have been correct. 'Hey, Nth Clare, the Primary function of breasts is breastfeeding.' Simple. But, you went on about breast sizes, which was irrelevant to that point.

No it isn’t because they backed up that that was their primary function by talking about size! To paraphrase “Their primary function is as a sexual signifier. The female breast size in relation to those of orang utans demonstrates this”. You really can’t see why I talked about size in reaction to their post? Read between the lines, for christ’s sake. I didn’t think I needed to simply spell it out more plainly because I don’t expect to have to dumb things down for people here.

EmmetSpiceland

Feisar wrote: »

Pink eye. I'll do anything after a lock of stout however I feel licky licky bum bum is main stream/standard when it really shouldn't be. Definately something for after a good hot shower. Not when yer drunk at half two in the morning with a ONS.

Ah now, you don’t go putting your eye into it!

My “one night stand” days are long behind me but when I was in them I’d always, always, run the tongue down past the “varse” and give the “brown star” a swirl.

Only found one girl who really wasn’t “into” it. She absolutely adores giving it though, always felt very selfish but if she didn’t like it I wasn’t going to force the issue.

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

That’s what I meant E

Sorry, S, wasn’t the first thing that came to my mind. Thought it was a bit out of “left field” alright!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No it isn’t because they backed up that that was their primary function by talking about size! To paraphrase “Their primary function is as a sexual signifier. The female breast size in relation to those of orang utans demonstrates this”. You really can’t see why I talked about size in reaction to their post? Read between the lines, for christ’s sake. I didn’t think I needed to simply spell it out more plainly because I don’t expect to have to dumb things down for people here.

I suspect you over estimate your own intelligence.

"Not exactly. The primary reason for the size of breasts is sexual signaling. The requirements for feeding offspring is much smaller- see female orangutan breasts for what breasts would look like is feeding offspring was the sole determining criterion."

Fash made the above comment when someone said Breasts weren't sexual. This was the point he was correcting, and that they are sexual. He was only wrong to the level of importance he gave them. If he had said secondary rather than primary he would have been 100% correct.

You latched onto size. Size has no bearing on whether they are primary or secondary characteristics.

Have I dumbed it down enough for you?