RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:48:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Not really hard to tell. You look at the way their pants fit and if all else fails you grab for good measure.

Ummm... certainly I've "heard" that, but, there is absolutely no way you can tell a cock size by the average set of pants. Just no way. If you can, you must be wearing those x-ray glasses so often found in boy's comic material.

And, any woman grabbing me in the crotch can have me right then and there; but it has never happened to me in my life, and I used to have the perfectly muscular body when I was younger (think Greek statue and 12% body fat weighed accurately under water). They didn't grab for my crotch then, and they don't now, for sure, now that the body fat has gotten its revenge served cold.

I have to ask other women if they can tell cock size, to ANY degree of accuracy, from typical male pants of today?
I also would ask other men how many times in their life, a woman who clearly doesn't know them all that well, has resorted to grabbing their crotch to ascertain their size (although I realize you could have merely been joking with that comment).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Not really that perplexing, I would only really want to be fucked by a certain body type.

Body type is a totally different story, and is perfectly understandable, even taken at face value.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
You're assuming, I do not know if other women suck cocks but I don't.

I have no idea where that comment came from, as I wasn't assuming anything about you whatsoever.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
And by the way your pandering is thinly veiled and thirsty,

Pander: : to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable.
To pander: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
Methinks a raw nerve was struck, but, I'm unsure of what pandering has to do with it.




littleladybug -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:51:52 AM)




quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

Basically, what I meant was that you will very likely not know a man's penis size until you literally see that penis, which, in most cases, isn't until going to happen until, oh, I don't know, perhaps the third, fourth, fifth, tenth? date, by which time, you've ALREADY selected this particular specimen for practice breeding (which, after all, is the primary biologically presumed purpose of sex).


Just because this woman wants to be sexually intimate with someone doesn't necessarily mean that she leaves her personal standards at the door.

There will generally be some overall compatibility established prior to sex occurring, but sexual compatibility also needs to be established. That is an important facet in *this woman's* search for a mate. If we don't enjoy the physical experience of sex, I don't see a reason to continue with the relationship. In my experience, both the emotional and physical aspects (including size of penis) come into play with this. *When* this occurs will vary, but I don't think that the timing necessarily makes it any less important.



quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
That's a perplexing statement for me to try to decipher the true meaning of.


What's to decipher?

I can't talk for "we women", I can only speak for myself in saying that, in certain circumstances, it can come into play. In the case of the person I still refer to as "Coke Can Guy", I simply could not see myself continuing in a relationship where sex was uncomfortable at best, and painful at worst.

Yup, that was pretty much the reason that I stopped seeing him.

You can, of course, think what you want in terms of "other determinants" being in play. Because, you know, if everything else "clicks" this shouldn't matter, right? Maybe for others, but not for *this woman*.

Now, in terms of not knowing this until whenever we have sex. Yeah, that's usually the way the "getting to know you stage" works, at least for me. For the purposes of a long term relationship, I'm generally not going to know every important detail up front, and realistically, not before sex happens. For example, I want to be with someone who respects his family. I may not see actual interaction for a while. Does that mean that it becomes lower as a priority? I don't think so. It's simply just the way things play out. For me, the boxes on my mental list need to be checked-- I'm not really concerned in what order they are checked in.




littleladybug -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 6:53:19 AM)

--

Deleted-- user error with quoting function.



crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 7:10:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
I don't think that the timing necessarily makes it any less important.

The timing of the assessment of cock size is an important point, and, I agree, the only thing we can reliably tell from the timing is that it can't possibly be a primary selection factor.

At best, it's a secondary selection factor.

Given that, I understand your point that it's a FACTOR nonetheless, but, I suspect, only meaningful when it's in a range that is clearly out of the normal bounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
In the case of the person I still refer to as "Coke Can Guy", I simply could not see myself continuing in a relationship where sex was uncomfortable at best, and painful at worst.

I understand.
To reflect, for your correction if/when I err, the penis size is a selection factor, only one of many - but a factor nonetheless; and, when clearly out of bounds, could be a highly negative factor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
if everything else "clicks" this shouldn't matter, right? Maybe for others, but not for *this woman*.

All men have heard the oft-stated comment about the "motion of the ocean" being what matters, so, while individuals will always vary, if and when cock size ever becomes a PRIMARY selection factor for women, many men would quickly respond, in effect, just as they do today with desiresables' that are a primary factor for many women (e.g., display of wealth, education, intelligence, sophistication, familial ties, political power, athletic prowess, or whatever men perceive floats any particular female's boat).

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
Now, in terms of not knowing this until whenever we have sex. Yeah, that's usually the way the "getting to know you stage" works, at least for me.


That's fair enough. I take that to indicate you will eventually make the assessment, which matters to you, but clearly not at first, and not for anyone who already failed your more primal selection factors.

For you, it's a selection factor, which, if I understood correctly, could even be highly negative if, perhaps, the belated revelation is that the measurement reveals an out of range determinant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
For me, the boxes on my mental list need to be checked-- I'm not really concerned in what order they are checked in.

This is an important point, and I appreciate that you made it clear.
For you, when it's out of bounds, it could easily be a selection factor, which, may be important, but, which, out of sheer temporal precedence, couldn't possibly be known until other selection factors have already been exercised.

Thanks for the insight.

As for the original topic, it would seem that size is a primary selection factor for condom selection, yet, as we all now know, the vast majority of condoms have no sizing information whatsoever on the package. Luckily that Internet-based size chart exists, so, the information is now known to those who know enough to find it.

The lack of sizing information on the package makes me wonder whether some, many, or even most condom "accidents" aren't due lack of knowledge about these size issues, particularly when breakage and lack of coverage may be involved.

EDIT: Typos! I hate (my) typos!



eulero83 -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 7:52:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
most (if not all) faliures depend on wearing it uncorrectly.


That's an interesting statement, which, while I don't disagree with (I have no data on how other people put on a condom), makes me wonder if SIZE isn't the problem most of the time when things are done "incorrectly".

That is, size may very well be the major factor in what you mean by putting a condom on "incorrectly". Many times, for example, before I realized there were different sizes, I've broken a condom just trying to get it on. Or, it has torn in use (usually near the base of the condom so that only the latter half remains untorn during sex).

Having described that I have had condom failures such as the above, I wonder if size wasn't the reason, as the actual act of putting it on is, by all accounts, pretty simple (i.e., (1) orient, (2) center, (3) unroll).

Hmmmmm....mmm... I realize that the Darwin Award concept exists, for a reason ... but ... how can you put a condom on "incorrectly", in context of this thread, without "size" being a (the?) major factor?


English is not my native language, so I sometimes use a word that does not give the exact or complete meaning to what I say, probably insted of "wearing" you should read "handling in the process of wearing", what I meant was:
it's true that condoms can be inflated a lot and so stretch on someone's head without breaking, but they are also very delicate when it comes to pinching and scratching, the serbatory has to be empty and other things. So if you need too much effort to put it on because it's too tight so unrolling over your shaft is not smooth there are higher chances of scratching it with your nails or having air in the tip if you need to help with the other hand.



littleladybug -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 8:14:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

Given that, I understand your point that it's a FACTOR nonetheless, but, I suspect, only meaningful when it's in a range that is clearly out of the normal bounds.


What's "normal"? What's on a chart?

I used the "Coke Can" example because it's the clearest I've had in my experience. I have no doubt that this guy's penis was well out of the range of "average" by any scientific measurements. But, truth be told, I just go with what feels right to me. Who knows? My own equipment may be out of the range of "normal" thereby eliminating certain "what's normal on a chart" penises. [:)]




quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
To reflect, for your correction if/when I err, the penis size is a selection factor, only one of many - but a factor nonetheless; and, when clearly out of bounds, could be a highly negative factor.


Again, what's "out of bounds"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

All men have heard the oft-stated comment about the "motion of the ocean" being what matters


And, I've always wondered who the first person to say that was.

For me, it's the equipment *and* how it's used. Sort of a "package deal", if you will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
If and when cock size ever becomes a PRIMARY selection factor for women, many men would quickly respond, in effect, just as they do today with desiresables' that are a primary factor for many women (e.g., display of wealth, education, intelligence, sophistication, or whatever men perceive floats any particular female's boat).


I'm not following this. How is education or intelligence "displayed"? How would I know these things without actually engaging the person himself? It seems to me that these things are more like the sexual aspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

For you, when it's out of bounds, it could easily be a selection factor, which, may be important, but, which wouldn't be known until other selection factors have been exercised.



Yes, that's true. But, frankly, it's not necessarily an "if/then" thing for me (that is, I don't have specific criteria that must be met before we get to that point). Going back to my comment about having the boxes being checked in no particular order--

I was intimate with my man relatively quickly. Very few of my boxes were checked. Pretty much all I "knew" at that point was that he seemed like the type of guy I would want to have a relationship with. In thinking back on it, there were certain important things to me that I did not know about him at that point. So be it.

Of course, by its nature, this is not going to be a "selection factor" that will be used first. For me, there needs to be other compatibility demonstrated before we get to that point. What that compatibility is specifically is determined on a case-by-case basis.



NookieNotes -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 8:45:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Um. Do I really need to explain this to you?


Umm... I guess yes.
I'm not tall. My pants inseam is not a large number. We live in a society that highly values height for males, particularly over any one particular female. But, I still buy my jeans by the length of the inseam, even though I wish it were longer. I don't expect to purchase jeans that have no size whatsoever outlined on the label.

We buy everything else by size, and certainly condoms are an IMPORTANT item to get the size right.
The fit matters. A lot.

Given that the fit is critical, I don't see any reason that the size can't be listed on the package; but, luckily, the chart that Steel posted is perfect.

Seems to me the best way to size things is to pick one, and then, if it's too tight, then to pick one that is further down in the chart, until the goldilocks zone is found.

Thanks!


That's not how ego works. AND it's not how branding works. A 34 in one pair of jeans may not fit you the way a 34 in another pair will.

If a pair that fit exactly right (for example) was a size 50, would you even think to try it? Probably not, because you do not think of yourself, nor wish to think of yourself as a size 50.

Now, there is not as much flux in men's sizing as there is in women's (although there is some), but I have sizes 4-12 and XS - XL in my closet that fit, although I am an eight. I have shoes sized 7 1/2 - 9, although I'm usually an 8 1/2.

And no, I do not try on XXXLs or size 12 shoes, nor do I generally try on size 0s or size 6 shoes.

Different cuts in the same brand will fit two sizes differently.

And men will generally never buy a product that proclaims them to have a tiny cock.

*smiles*

Hope that helps, logically and illogically.



GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 9:38:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Not really hard to tell. You look at the way their pants fit and if all else fails you grab for good measure.

Ummm... certainly I've "heard" that, but, there is absolutely no way you can tell a cock size by the average set of pants. Just no way. If you can, you must be wearing those x-ray glasses so often found in boy's comic material.

And, any woman grabbing me in the crotch can have me right then and there; but it has never happened to me in my life, and I used to have the perfectly muscular body when I was younger (think Greek statue and 12% body fat weighed accurately under water). They didn't grab for my crotch then, and they don't now, for sure, now that the body fat has gotten its revenge served cold.

I have to ask other women if they can tell cock size, to ANY degree of accuracy, from typical male pants of today?
I also would ask other men how many times in their life, a woman who clearly doesn't know them all that well, has resorted to grabbing their crotch to ascertain their size (although I realize you could have merely been joking with that comment).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Not really that perplexing, I would only really want to be fucked by a certain body type.

Body type is a totally different story, and is perfectly understandable, even taken at face value.

Actually no it's not. Cock size relates to body type.
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
You're assuming, I do not know if other women suck cocks but I don't.

I have no idea where that comment came from, as I wasn't assuming anything about you whatsoever.

You assume most (if not all women sucked cocks. Maybe in your fantasies but it doesn't translate to reality. It was clear this was an individual perspective vs a conducted study. That much is apparent. Then you went off into talks of moths and cock sizes relative to his and hers in a piss poor attempt to perpetuate this idea that women should lowwer their standards due to "mouth size". Then talked about your tongue which no one really cares about either and the fact that if your cock doesn't compensate it certainly will. Well that's how I read between the lines anyway. And in my mind my impression matters more than your "innocent act".
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
And by the way your pandering is thinly veiled and thirsty,

Pander: : to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable.
To pander: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
Methinks a raw nerve was struck, but, I'm unsure of what pandering has to do with it.


On what planet do you think an uncollared sub trying to show off pictures of his toys and lamenting about his cock being too large for condom and his tongue too large for mouth would strike a nerve with moi? Do tell. *smirks*
OK, forget the word pander. "Your thirst is thinly veiled" will suffice.



crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 8:21:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
they are also very delicate when it comes to pinching and scratching,


I understand, and I agree.

When I was younger, and didn't know about the larger sizes, I would try to roll the thing on, and it wouldn't go on. I had to grab the rolled-up edges at the sides, and pull it on with two hands. Even then, it wouldn't roll on evenly, so I had to tug at the sides. I don't remember how often I broke them in that endeavor, but it was more than a few times.

So, I don't disagree with you that the smaller sizes require more manipulation, which, if damaged, even ever so slightly, can impair the structural integrity of the condom.

Again, what that means is that the lack of size information on the package, may actually be a major reason for condom failures.
It would be interesting to find a study of the reasons for condom failures though, as I have no data from anyone else on that issue.



crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 8:52:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
What's "normal"?

The 50% point is right at the center of "normal".
[image]http://i59.tinypic.com/29kxgf7.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
What's on a chart?

GotSteel posted a link earlier to a chart showing condom sizing information.
[image]http://i62.tinypic.com/2ryftde.png[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
I used the "Coke Can" example because it's the clearest I've had in my experience.

A 12-ounce can of soda has the following dimensions (according to this reference).
Length: 4.75 inches (12 cm)
Circumference: 8.1875 inches (21 cm)
So, a coke-can-penis length is about average; but the girth is well off the chart!
[image]http://i59.tinypic.com/29zx3sn.jpg[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
Again, what's "out of bounds"?

Um... you're the one who said it was a deal breaker, not me.
So YOU get to decide what's out of bounds, for you.
On the charts, you can clearly see how all 15,000 penises sized up, so, you get to pick your own limits.
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
I'm not following this. How is education or intelligence "displayed"? How would I know these things without actually engaging the person himself? It seems to me that these things are more like the sexual aspect.

I was following YOUR logic, which was that penis size, if out of bounds, was a factor in your decision making process.
Following your own logic, you wouldn't know penis size until a later stage in the selection process.
So, following your own logic, and assuming you don't jump into bed with a guy the first hour you meet him, you have at least an hour to assess intelligence.
If you hadn't assessed intelligence within the first hour of meeting someone, I'd be surprised.
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
Of course, by its nature, this is not going to be a "selection factor" that will be used first. For me, there needs to be other compatibility demonstrated before we get to that point. What that compatibility is specifically is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Yep. We agree. That's exactly how I understood your statements, and that's how it works.



GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 9:07:23 PM)

Out of curiosity crumpets, what is the goal here? Let's say I was completely wrong in my initial assertion. Is this really an argument about condoms? I dunno, you're making the local Adonis who ninja-sent me a dick pic look attractive. I think I'm starting to get the whole "penis" thing with you guys, LOL. *shrug*
Yes, the infamous dick pic, yet another way to know how much a guy is packing. [:D]



crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 9:23:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
That's not how ego works. AND it's not how branding works. A 34 in one pair of jeans may not fit you the way a 34 in another pair will.

I'm not sure what ego has to do with it.
When the MD measures my temperature, and she's expecting 98.6, and I measure at 94, is my ego even involved?
Likewise, if I buy Levis at, say, a size 32 inseam, while Lees fit better at size 31 inseam, is my ego involved at all?
If my shoe size is normally a 12M, but a particular pair of sneakers fits better at 11M, is my ego affected?
If I need a pair of glasses, and my eyes are closer spaced than the average, does that have anything to do with my ego?

Looking at the nomogram for the 15,000 men, it appears men vary from 5 cm (2 in) to about 21 cm (8 in) long, with a girth from about 7cm (3 in) to 17cm (7 in).

Likewise, looking at the GotSteel chart, condoms vary in length from 17.5cm (6.9 in) to 23.5cm (9-1/4 in), and they vary in girth from 8.9mm (3.5 in) to 14.6cm (5.7 in).

Given the huge variation in actual dimensions of both penises and condoms, why should a manufacturer NOT list the measurements on the package, just as they do for most other medical items.
quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
If a pair that fit exactly right (for example) was a size 50, would you even think to try it?

Six inches is six inches. Period.
It always was. And always will be.
Where is the ambiguity?

If a condom said it was six inches long, then it is six inches long (government agencies could keep 'em honest).
If that same condom said it was 3 inches in girth, then it is three inches in girth.
Where's the ambiguity?

If a six-inch-long by 3-inch girth condom fit me just right, then that's the "size" I would use.
If the size were printed on the package, I could choose my condoms by size.

As it is, I already choose them by size, but I have to ignore the vast majority of condoms because there is no sizing information whatsoever on the package, so, I have to hunt around for specialty brands. I'm sure plenty of other guys have the same issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Different cuts in the same brand will fit two sizes differently.

You're trying to compare clothing, especially women's clothing, to something that is a simple geometric cylinder.
For a cylinder, the only thing that matters, with respect to sizing, is the length and width.
I guess we could get into the durometer values for buna rubber versus viton, but, I'm not going there.
quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
And men will generally never buy a product that proclaims them to have a tiny cock.

The size doesn't have to be printed on a big label hanging around his balls.
It's just on the original package.
The actual rubber condom wouldn't need the size on it any more than an vitamin needs to proclaim how many micrograms of Vitamin E it contains. That stuff stays on the package.

And, I don't think men are that shallow that they'll get the wrong size, just for their ego, especially when, in the case of using a condom, the size is readily apparent by the time the condom goes on.



tiggerspoohbear -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 9:34:21 PM)

[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif][sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]



crumpets -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 9:54:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

Out of curiosity crumpets, what is the goal here? Let's say I was completely wrong in my initial assertion. Is this really an argument about condoms? I dunno, you're making the local Adonis who ninja-sent me a dick pic look attractive. I think I'm starting to get the whole "penis" thing with you guys, LOL. *shrug*
Yes, the infamous dick pic, yet another way to know how much a guy is packing. [:D]


I'll tell you a little story, true, and embarrassing.

When I was a young kid (I had just turned 14), my girlfriend didn't like that we were practicing the pull-out method, so, she asked me to buy protection at the drug store.
I didn't know the "laws" on such things, so, I had assumed they were only for "adults", but, in those days, you often weren't carded when buying "adult" stuff, and, being Italian, I shaved well before anyone else, so, I thought I could just about get away with the ruse.
The next day, we rode our bikes to a store that was farther away than we would have gone to had it been something else I was intending on purchasing, and she waited outside as I went inside to fulfill my obligation.
Much to my horror, the condoms were behind the counter!
So, I went back outside, to confer with my girlfriend, as to what I should do.
Expecting some kind of helpful advice, all I got was something akin to "if you don't do it, I'm gonna go inside and do it right now", so, I went back inside, much chastised.
At the counter, I remember clearly that I hesitantly asked for "prophylactics" (I probably didn't even know the slang "condom" or "rubber" in those days), and, much to my surprise, the guy behind the counter simply asked "Which ones do you want?"
I had no idea. Not a clue.
Being the curious fellow that I am, his nonchalant request bolstered my confidence, and allowed me to ask HIM what the difference was between his offerings, and, if I remember correctly, I got (what turns out to be) a lame assessment revolving around ribs and women's feelings, so, as I recall, I walked out with a box of whatever it was that he had recommended (I think I remember blue being the color of the box, but I'm not sure).

Of course, I read the package, and, while I don't remember exactly why, I do remember that I broke the first one in the process of putting it on, and I don't remember how many more, but, for years, using condoms was an exercise in futility.
This is well before the Internet, of course, and it was only in college years that I learned there was even such a thing as different sizes.

Why doesn't anyone tell their kids this stuff?
Do you tell your boys this information?

We learned sex ed from our gym teachers, almost all of whom were tough-as-nails ex marines as I recall, so, this kind of helpful advice would have been the LAST thing they were gonna tell us.
My parents were Roman Catholic to the core, so, asking them anything, was out of the question before the get go.
I'm sure none of my friends knew.
And, in those days, Barnes and Noble, if it existed, didn't get to my town.

Fast forward to today, where we learn, based on the GotSteel chart, condom lengths vary by as much as 134% and girths by 164% (between brands listed on that chart) and that men's penises vary by 420% in erect length and 243% in erect girth.
These are absolutely huge variations, yet, not a word is printed on the package about the actual size of the condom.
It's all marketing. Zero medicine.



DerangedUnit -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 10:15:36 PM)

Weird I've never had a condom break unless it was really old... also I've known big guys that use any condom, they told me the magnums feel them same and they guess it's just a vanity thing... I can't say I've varied much in brands though, but you'd think if they were different sizes they would say them sizes.... I've known of condoms being too big so they slip but never too small, those things are Hella stretchy. Haven't used one (or had one used) in years so that may have changed.... but I worked at a drug store and our training video did not cover sizing lol



GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 10:20:48 PM)

Yah, was gonna say, you might need to just figure out the right way to put it on. I have used many sized toys and condom application was never an issue, especially breaking them.



DerangedUnit -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 10:31:23 PM)

I say this demands something akin to a blind taste test.... we will need test subjects, blindfolds, and condom donations

Errr... without the tasting...



GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 10:34:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit

I say this demands something akin to a blind taste test.... we will need test subjects, blindfolds, and condom donations

Errr... without the tasting...


This is what happens when someone's phone charger breaks and you leave them to their devices on the internet, LOL.



DerangedUnit -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 10:36:41 PM)

My love of the scientific method is always getting me into trouble



GoddessManko -> RE: Why are prophylactics almost always not sized correctly? (3/6/2015 10:39:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit

My love of the scientific method is always getting me into trouble

Get in the scientific mood in my kitchen, I'm hungry and I don't wanna get up. Kidding, hehe. [8D]



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625