are girls realy weak?
0
Keitaro Ito wrote...
Well I dont think they're weak but It is expected of men to be stronger because of the stereotypical idea that men have to protect their women. However I have seen some girls in my karate class take down bigger guys than them, so I wouldnt dare say they're weak.Also girls can endure lots of pain than guys. I mean when they give birth they have to force their baby out creating a large hole in the girls ass and that must be really painful (Just a theory). That alone proves that women arent weak.
I will now repeat what I've said 4 times previously a 5th time. Women being able to tolerate pain during childbirth means nothing. They tolerate it because their body releases massive amounts of endorphines to act as natural pain killer. Also not every woman can tolerate it. If a man were to have to give birth, I'm pretty sure the body would be build in a way that would allow that to happen without people dying.
When not high off endorphines, the woman's body is just as sensitive. Women are more prone to being a pansy and making a big deal when they stub their toe because society tells them its ok to be a whiny bitch and that men are suppose to take it.
I do see in the younger girls nowadays that most of them aren't pansies and cry at every little thing like my mom and older sister.
If you want to have a control test of which gender can resist pain the most, get a man and woman of equal weight, preferably soldiers, and have a platypus sting them. Then again, it's probably so painful both of them will pass out...
Conclusion? Using childbirth as an example of strength is not valid.
0
Wordmangler2000 wrote...
Better-looking, obviously, even resolutely straight women will admit that after a drink or two.WHAT. NEVER.
OT and to comments above: Are we talking about physical strength or capability to survive in society here?
0
Wordmangler2000 wrote...
merriment wrote...
Wordmangler2000 wrote...
Better-looking, obviously, even resolutely straight women will admit that after a drink or two.WHAT. NEVER.
[laffin'] OK, if you say so.
But I've spent a lot of time around straight women who make a game out of rating the attractiveness of other women. It often turns into "I'm straight but I'd make an exception for that one" kind of talk. 'Cause women aren't as paranoid and freaked-out about it.
Immature men go nuts at the slightest intimation they might be gay or even recognize the attractive qualities of other men. There's no stigma for women. So they are able to admire other women, if only in a theoretical sense, as works of art.
And yeah, after a few drinks, most women I know get a bit, um...earthier in the language they use to describe other women.
Most of the women I've been with have eventually admitted to having had sexual experiences with other girls. All of them have admitted to occasional sexual feelings for other women.
I think we're all born with the potential to be bisexual. Oral sex feels good no matter who's giving it to us, you know? We have to learn to reject half the population.
I don't mean to sound as if I've transcended these social influences. I've had opportunities for gay sex, with men who are good friends, and never been able to bring myself to do it. When it comes to natural bisexualism, I talk the talk but I don't walk the walk. I guess I'm not that evolved.
You, mister, could have not better expressed all the feelings and thoughts and conclusions I've had and made during these past few weeks. Seriously. It's almost scary how likeminded you are with me on this.
I was confessed by a junior student the other week and I had to put a lot of thought into how I would response to her (she's really pretty and a lot of fun to be around with). Especially because I have a lot of lesbian and bisexual girl friends, with whom I often joke about these things - as you noted girls often do. Eventually I decided that I shouldn't get myself into anything I wasn't sure about.
ANYWAY my point is that yes yes, I agree with everything you stated here. So very true. How boring. I didn't get to argue with you again.
0
Wordmangler2000 wrote...
Stick with me, sister. We'll have plenty of opportunities to argue, I'm sure of it.How come you don't read my stories????
Orly~? Too long, I have no time + there's much hentai on this site????
1
Wordmangler2000 wrote...
Men are different from women. They're larger. More muscular. Shorter-lived. They remain reproductively capable into old age instead of going through menopause at the midpoint of their lives. They are more aggressive, quicker to anger, and more likely to see the world in analytic terms. In terms of friendship and trust, they are less likely to form M-M bonds than women are to form F-F bonds. All of these traits are true of humans just as they are true of other primates.
First and foremost, I wasn't flaming you specifically. I was just giving my opinion on the people who take considerations of a female-only society seriously. Second, your entire reply seemed stupid to me for some reason, probably because a majority of it has no backbone. Third, you act as if I'd specifically called you out and gave a barely coherent response on why your family is stupid or whatever people use to insult each other with these days. I'd apologize for the confusion, but the "punk" and "idiot" abolished my sympathies.
Now, on to the bulk of things. This paragraph I've quoted alone makes nearly everything you said pointless, as it is simply...horrid.
-Why-, they live longer. 70+ years isn't by any means short regardless, as you'll be helpless a majority of that time anyway.
Not all men are larger than all women. Men gain more muscle mass, yes, but not all men are more muscular than all women. Women outlive men by, what, a few years of painful old age? This takes into consideration all of the dangerous tasks that tend to be male-oriented.
Women aren't as aggressive as men? Incorrect.
More aggressive, no. In a society where all men are basically told never to lay their hands on a woman, this of course tends to make women more violent. In fact, women engage domestic violence 3/4 times, and are more likely to go for death shots, as opposed to simply restraining their opponent, due to the emotional explosiveness of a woman. This also rules out males being quicker to anger. Menstrual cycles alone could obliterate that notion.
Without analyzations, there'd be no meaningful inventions.
Considering how many of the large industries and world-changing inventions and organizations have been created by men, then I'd say analyzing the world would be a good thing. In fact, a superb thing.
Males less likely to form M-M bonds? If that's the case, then I guess team sports don't exist, as official sports leagues are majority male. I mean, that notion in general, is completely ludicrous. In fact, I've noted female-female bonds to be much more fickle than male-male bonds, where the female-female bond breaks over something trivial, while the males just patch things up.
If you mean guys are more likely to headbutt each other like dumbasses, then sure. But in terms of actual physical unwanted violence...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Probably because they've been portrayed to never forgive and never forget. Yet, they're less aggressive, yeah? Despite the girls that walk around saying they'll kick any guy in the balls like that's such an amazing feat, I suppose they're probably very peaceful, yeah? A guy calls them a bitch and then they slam his face into a locker makes them angels, surely.
Let's call that your thesis statement. Considering your thesis statement was complete poppycock, there's really no need to comment on the rest of it. Also, I wouldn't base everything off of how feral primates act.
I don't flame, my good man. I debate.
0
I actually decided to stay out of SD, because it's pointless to have a debate with people who take themselves too serious, but utterly fail to read someone else's post thoroughly and then make completely irrelevant and partially even senseless responses that completely miss the point of the original post.
BUT, I felt like jumping in here for once.
What I would call "horrid" is your lack of understanding what a gender role actually is, Kensouke. You wrote:
A gender role is not a gender. A gender role is a stereotypical set of attitudes and actions associated with one sex. For example: Most men are more successful in the corporate world.
This doesn't mean that it will stay like that. This concrete aspect of a gender specific role could change (and is changing in fact).
So Wordmangler never wrote that MEN will become obsolete. He wrote that many of the gender ROLES we associate with men will become obsolete, change or disappear.
Which makes you whole post about how men could never be replaced problematic, because noone wrote that. You are arguing against a non existing argument. So THAT debate was completely in your head and your head only - which makes me actually wonder how secure you are in your own non-obsolescence.
Yeah, and there are fat people and thin people. That doesn't change the fact that men not only can gain MORE muscle mass, they gain muscle mass also easier. Such studies compare people who are working on gaining muscle mass and not people who train and people who sit at home on their fat asses and watch TV.
Not only that this has nothing to do with gaining muscle mass, so I don't quite get why it's in the same paragraph, this part can be dismantled on so many levels, that it makes someone wonder why you even bothered typing it out.
Since you are so fond of going on about modern western society, let's look into this from that aspect:
1. Painful old age isn't as painful as it used to be thanks to modern health care and higher living standard.
2. There is an overwhelming majority of men working in such jobs. But if you compare a female to a male worker, the dangers are the same for both sexes. So it is not a danger that threatens male-only.
3. Have you ever read about the dangers and risks on pregnancy and childbirth, even in modern societies?
Of course, if you compare an aggressive woman to an aggressive man. But if you compare the statistics on crime-rates, then there is a clear trend that violent crimes are committed by far more men than women.
Just because someone is told not to do something, doesn't mean he won't do it. Modern society doesn't have a no-violence-toward-women only attitude, but a general no-violence attitude. Violence is frowned upon in general. It's more frowned upon when it is directed at someone who is weaker. That can be a helpless male victim, that can be a helpless female victim. Or a child.
And for christer sake, how can be "men are told never to lay their hands on a woman" the SINGLE cause to female violence? How can it even contribute to female violence? How is it related to female violence?
Here we go, a wanna-be-expert on the female body functions. Did you actually read what kind of emotional responses fluctuations in estrogen cause? Are you really sure it's "agression" and "violence"? (Btw you should read up on the definition and differences of being "agressive", being "violent" compared to being "nervous", "anxious", "irritated", "depressed" - because there are significant and officially defined differences.)
And your narrow and subjective glimpse at people's lives around you, makes you obviously an expert on those things and therefore you can ignore all the official study crap and state that whatever you say is nothing but the absolute and objective truth. Right?
Do I really have to repeat myself on the difference between "someone saying something" and "someone actually doing something"?
Show me the numbers on how many women walk around kicking guys in the balls or even better slamming men's faces into lockers, we'll compare it with the figures on GUYS kicking guys in the balls and slamming each other's faces into lockers, breaking each other's noses, beating each other senseless, getting into violent, agressive fights, killing each other and oh, yeah ... rape. How many women actually walk around raping men? I wonder ...
I'll comment this with your own argument:
BUT, I felt like jumping in here for once.
Kensouke wrote...
This paragraph I've quoted alone makes nearly everything you said pointless, as it is simply...horrid.What I would call "horrid" is your lack of understanding what a gender role actually is, Kensouke. You wrote:
... the notion that any gender role can be completely replaced and become obsolete or whatever is just pointless immature garbage that those of lesser intelligence spew out when they're in a bad mood and feel like taking a spin at being philosophical or whatever.
A gender role is not a gender. A gender role is a stereotypical set of attitudes and actions associated with one sex. For example: Most men are more successful in the corporate world.
This doesn't mean that it will stay like that. This concrete aspect of a gender specific role could change (and is changing in fact).
So Wordmangler never wrote that MEN will become obsolete. He wrote that many of the gender ROLES we associate with men will become obsolete, change or disappear.
Which makes you whole post about how men could never be replaced problematic, because noone wrote that. You are arguing against a non existing argument. So THAT debate was completely in your head and your head only - which makes me actually wonder how secure you are in your own non-obsolescence.
Kensouke wrote...
Not all men are larger than all women. Men gain more muscle mass, yes, but not all men are more muscular than all women.Yeah, and there are fat people and thin people. That doesn't change the fact that men not only can gain MORE muscle mass, they gain muscle mass also easier. Such studies compare people who are working on gaining muscle mass and not people who train and people who sit at home on their fat asses and watch TV.
Kensouke wrote...
Women outlive men by, what, a few years of painful old age? This takes into consideration all of the dangerous tasks that tend to be male-oriented.Not only that this has nothing to do with gaining muscle mass, so I don't quite get why it's in the same paragraph, this part can be dismantled on so many levels, that it makes someone wonder why you even bothered typing it out.
Since you are so fond of going on about modern western society, let's look into this from that aspect:
1. Painful old age isn't as painful as it used to be thanks to modern health care and higher living standard.
2. There is an overwhelming majority of men working in such jobs. But if you compare a female to a male worker, the dangers are the same for both sexes. So it is not a danger that threatens male-only.
3. Have you ever read about the dangers and risks on pregnancy and childbirth, even in modern societies?
Kensouke wrote...
Women aren't as aggressive as men? Incorrect.Of course, if you compare an aggressive woman to an aggressive man. But if you compare the statistics on crime-rates, then there is a clear trend that violent crimes are committed by far more men than women.
Kensouke wrote...
In a society where all men are basically told never to lay their hands on a woman, this of course tends to make women more violent.Just because someone is told not to do something, doesn't mean he won't do it. Modern society doesn't have a no-violence-toward-women only attitude, but a general no-violence attitude. Violence is frowned upon in general. It's more frowned upon when it is directed at someone who is weaker. That can be a helpless male victim, that can be a helpless female victim. Or a child.
And for christer sake, how can be "men are told never to lay their hands on a woman" the SINGLE cause to female violence? How can it even contribute to female violence? How is it related to female violence?
Kensouke wrote...
Menstrual cycles alone could obliterate that notion.Here we go, a wanna-be-expert on the female body functions. Did you actually read what kind of emotional responses fluctuations in estrogen cause? Are you really sure it's "agression" and "violence"? (Btw you should read up on the definition and differences of being "agressive", being "violent" compared to being "nervous", "anxious", "irritated", "depressed" - because there are significant and officially defined differences.)
Kensouke wrote...
In fact, I've noted female-female bonds to be much more fickle than male-male bonds, where the female-female bond breaks over something trivial, while the males just patch things up.And your narrow and subjective glimpse at people's lives around you, makes you obviously an expert on those things and therefore you can ignore all the official study crap and state that whatever you say is nothing but the absolute and objective truth. Right?
Kensouke wrote...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Probably because they've been portrayed to never forgive and never forget. Yet, they're less aggressive, yeah? Despite the girls that walk around saying they'll kick any guy in the balls like that's such an amazing feat, I suppose they're probably very peaceful, yeah? A guy calls them a bitch and then they slam his face into a locker makes them angels, surely.Do I really have to repeat myself on the difference between "someone saying something" and "someone actually doing something"?
Show me the numbers on how many women walk around kicking guys in the balls or even better slamming men's faces into lockers, we'll compare it with the figures on GUYS kicking guys in the balls and slamming each other's faces into lockers, breaking each other's noses, beating each other senseless, getting into violent, agressive fights, killing each other and oh, yeah ... rape. How many women actually walk around raping men? I wonder ...
Kensouke wrote...
Considering your thesis statement was complete poppycock, there's really no need to comment on the rest of it.I'll comment this with your own argument:
Kensouke wrote...
This paragraph I've quoted alone makes nearly everything you said pointless, as it is simply...horrid.
0
I can admit, some women ARE physically weak. But there are some that can kick your ass. I don't think I'm very strong. But in the past, I've been known to pack a few good punches. And if you hand me a melee weapon, I'm sure to beat you down. But that's me.
And that is not entirely true. We are built to push out a 6-10 lbs baby out of a small hole. Sometimes multiple times. The pain we go through just to do THAT is the equivalent of getting hit by a car. Yet we do it anyways. I would second guess what you mean by "physically weak". Because I'd like to see you "men" do something like that out of your little wee-hole.
And that is not entirely true. We are built to push out a 6-10 lbs baby out of a small hole. Sometimes multiple times. The pain we go through just to do THAT is the equivalent of getting hit by a car. Yet we do it anyways. I would second guess what you mean by "physically weak". Because I'd like to see you "men" do something like that out of your little wee-hole.
0
Due to dual response, I'm not going to bother quoting everything, so I'll sum it up.
Wordmangler, I'd think to respond to you, I'd have to inform you that I'm responding to you. My point is that I didn't flame you specifically by saying that you yourself applied to my list of adjectives, nor did I have malicious intentions directed towards you while typing them. Interestingly enough, you vanished from my mind as quickly as you came. That being said, it wasn't my primary intention to offend you. As previously stated, I would have apologized for the confusion, but my apology somehow slipped out of my grasp after you specifically directed "idiot" and "punk" towards me. Thus, the later post was written out of annoyance, hence why the only things not opinionated or personalized in it are the articles. I'd consider flaming to be personal verbal attacks on someone, as opposed to attacking something someone has said. Therefore I wouldn't consider my later post to be a flame either, as I still failed to call you any sort of name. Considering I value tranquility over chaos, I'll take the opportunity to formally apologize. Though your directed insults did annoy me, my later response wasn't the best approach either, and for that I apologize.
However.
In regards to evolution and life span.
Men are evolutionarily more violent than women, yes.
Analyzation. Many people don't know it's not a word. I exploit this because it should be.
Bonding: Evolutionary Style
In terms of the sole topic of Evolution your thesis was not complete poppycock. I'd mistakenly expanded the topic range, which threw out most if not all of my rebuttals. Considering we're both supported by research,(Mine,modern. Yours Evolutionary.) then I'll admit that most of this came from a misunderstanding, as many things in history have. Said things were only irrelevant because of the narrow topic, so I'm not quite sure where to place this one. I also wouldn't quite call them ad hominem attacks because I didn't attack you personally, though I did fly off the handle with personal observations. Though, they're sound observations as they are conclusions based on multiple examinations. But we all live different lives, don't we? I'd agree I didn't offer any ideas, simply because I was debunking yours, which turned out to be negated simply because of the topic at hand. This is a method that ends a debate simply by disproving everything your opponent has said. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, my sources were irrelevant due to the topic range, or lack thereof.
And yes, I do say so.
https://i.imgur.com/8pFTX.jpg
LittleRED, I'll respond simply because it would be rude to ignore you. Excuse me if it's lazy.
This is my definition of brief.
Wordmangler, I'd think to respond to you, I'd have to inform you that I'm responding to you. My point is that I didn't flame you specifically by saying that you yourself applied to my list of adjectives, nor did I have malicious intentions directed towards you while typing them. Interestingly enough, you vanished from my mind as quickly as you came. That being said, it wasn't my primary intention to offend you. As previously stated, I would have apologized for the confusion, but my apology somehow slipped out of my grasp after you specifically directed "idiot" and "punk" towards me. Thus, the later post was written out of annoyance, hence why the only things not opinionated or personalized in it are the articles. I'd consider flaming to be personal verbal attacks on someone, as opposed to attacking something someone has said. Therefore I wouldn't consider my later post to be a flame either, as I still failed to call you any sort of name. Considering I value tranquility over chaos, I'll take the opportunity to formally apologize. Though your directed insults did annoy me, my later response wasn't the best approach either, and for that I apologize.
However.
In regards to evolution and life span.
Spoiler:
Men are evolutionarily more violent than women, yes.
Spoiler:
Analyzation. Many people don't know it's not a word. I exploit this because it should be.
Spoiler:
Bonding: Evolutionary Style
Spoiler:
In terms of the sole topic of Evolution your thesis was not complete poppycock. I'd mistakenly expanded the topic range, which threw out most if not all of my rebuttals. Considering we're both supported by research,(Mine,modern. Yours Evolutionary.) then I'll admit that most of this came from a misunderstanding, as many things in history have. Said things were only irrelevant because of the narrow topic, so I'm not quite sure where to place this one. I also wouldn't quite call them ad hominem attacks because I didn't attack you personally, though I did fly off the handle with personal observations. Though, they're sound observations as they are conclusions based on multiple examinations. But we all live different lives, don't we? I'd agree I didn't offer any ideas, simply because I was debunking yours, which turned out to be negated simply because of the topic at hand. This is a method that ends a debate simply by disproving everything your opponent has said. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, my sources were irrelevant due to the topic range, or lack thereof.
And yes, I do say so.
https://i.imgur.com/8pFTX.jpg
LittleRED, I'll respond simply because it would be rude to ignore you. Excuse me if it's lazy.
Spoiler:
This is my definition of brief.
0
from an evolutionary point you can't say that a sex-related average-lifespan difference in the bracket of 65-70 for a species who until very recently had a lifespan of ~30+-10 years is due an evolutionary reason as there hasn't been any evolutionary pressure which is evident by the amount of deleterious alleles "activating" at older ages.
And if you want to discuss menopause it's better to do so in another thread, because you draw no connection between it and living longer.
And women has never died at menopause so the discussion really isn't going anywhere xD
And I'm sure everyone can see the problem of using crime data as a proxy data for aggressiveness. Especially when men are stronger then women (this thread should've ended at page one with this sentence)
And that is not entirely true. We are built to push out a 6-10 lbs baby out of a small hole. Sometimes multiple times. The pain we go through just to do THAT is the equivalent of getting hit by a car. Yet we do it anyways. I would second guess what you mean by "physically weak". Because I'd like to see you "men" do something like that out of your little wee-hole.
Hi. I've had more kidneystones then fingers. Some say it hurts a lot more then giving birth, others say it hurts less. Depending from person to person, child to child and stone to stone. Most women tend to agree that kidney stones are way worse though since it takes such a long time to get rid of them, and it's slightly worse for men. I don't think there is any meaningful difference in pain tolerance between sexes. When people, like myself, say that women are physically weaker we mean that we men have more muscles then you(?) girls. For A: biological reasons and B: social reasons.
There is always exceptions.
And if you want to discuss menopause it's better to do so in another thread, because you draw no connection between it and living longer.
And women has never died at menopause so the discussion really isn't going anywhere xD
And I'm sure everyone can see the problem of using crime data as a proxy data for aggressiveness. Especially when men are stronger then women (this thread should've ended at page one with this sentence)
SilencedSiren wrote...
I can admit, some women ARE physically weak. But there are some that can kick your ass. I don't think I'm very strong. But in the past, I've been known to pack a few good punches. And if you hand me a melee weapon, I'm sure to beat you down. But that's me.And that is not entirely true. We are built to push out a 6-10 lbs baby out of a small hole. Sometimes multiple times. The pain we go through just to do THAT is the equivalent of getting hit by a car. Yet we do it anyways. I would second guess what you mean by "physically weak". Because I'd like to see you "men" do something like that out of your little wee-hole.
Hi. I've had more kidneystones then fingers. Some say it hurts a lot more then giving birth, others say it hurts less. Depending from person to person, child to child and stone to stone. Most women tend to agree that kidney stones are way worse though since it takes such a long time to get rid of them, and it's slightly worse for men. I don't think there is any meaningful difference in pain tolerance between sexes. When people, like myself, say that women are physically weaker we mean that we men have more muscles then you(?) girls. For A: biological reasons and B: social reasons.
There is always exceptions.
-1
guammastermind671
Da RL Lurker at FAKKU
Well this topic is very bland to me. Girls by far are not weak to a point. They may be weaker in a fight, but they carry the burden of harboring children and giving birth to them. My aunt had her baby in the house and I saw how it happen with my own eyes. Seriously, I doubt most men can take that type of pain.
0
Salaryman Man wrote...
Men are generally stronger and can get more muscles both faster and easier than women. Doesn't mean anything on the individual level, though. There are plenty of women who could beat you shitless if they wanted to, so don't get too cocky.I know some women like that...*shrivers* . Freakin' Sha-ra's
0
guammastermind671 wrote...
Well this topic is very bland to me. Girls by far are not weak to a point. They may be weaker in a fight, but they carry the burden of harboring children and giving birth to them. My aunt had her baby in the house and I saw how it happen with my own eyes. Seriously, I doubt most men can take that type of pain. 6th time I'm repeating this, child birth has absolutely nothing to do with strength. During childbirth a woman's body is... you know what, this is way to stupid for me to type 6 times in 1 thread.
0
guammastermind671
Da RL Lurker at FAKKU
Sprite wrote...
guammastermind671 wrote...
Well this topic is very bland to me. Girls by far are not weak to a point. They may be weaker in a fight, but they carry the burden of harboring children and giving birth to them. My aunt had her baby in the house and I saw how it happen with my own eyes. Seriously, I doubt most men can take that type of pain. 6th time I'm repeating this, child birth has absolutely nothing to do with strength. During childbirth a woman's body is... you know what, this is way to stupid for me to type 6 times in 1 thread.
oh I see what you mean. In terms of strength, men are more stronger than women. Its all determined on how they handle a fight and how much they trained before a fight. Sorry for making ya type six times though :[
0
guammastermind671 wrote...
Sprite wrote...
guammastermind671 wrote...
Well this topic is very bland to me. Girls by far are not weak to a point. They may be weaker in a fight, but they carry the burden of harboring children and giving birth to them. My aunt had her baby in the house and I saw how it happen with my own eyes. Seriously, I doubt most men can take that type of pain. 6th time I'm repeating this, child birth has absolutely nothing to do with strength. During childbirth a woman's body is... you know what, this is way to stupid for me to type 6 times in 1 thread.
oh I see what you mean. In terms of strength, men are more stronger than women. Its all determined on how they handle a fight and how much they trained before a fight. Sorry for making ya type six times though :[
That's not quite what I meant but sure. Testosterone naturally aids in muscle building so men are more inclined to be stronger than women. The ability to tolerate pain differs between each person with no big different between genders. Its in general, women have a higher tendency to be a pansy because that is what society wants them to be.
0
Fire cannot start without a little combustion.
And most men would rather improve their muscles and most women would rather improve their beauty,
that's just how the world works. =l
But women have been known to be smarter than men when thinking outside the box, not to mention a coin would need both sides in order for it to be flippant. ;D
And most men would rather improve their muscles and most women would rather improve their beauty,
that's just how the world works. =l
But women have been known to be smarter than men when thinking outside the box, not to mention a coin would need both sides in order for it to be flippant. ;D
0
stephy wrote...
Nah, they take a pretty good pounding to the cunt so i doubt it....GTFO , say it like it is.
YSSUP.
0
Women are like the main character in a video game and men are the boss fights. We are bigger and stronger then the main character, but we have a big glowing weak point.
0
drake210 wrote...
Women are like the main character in a video game and men are the boss fights. We are bigger and stronger then the main character, but we have a big glowing weak point.True the male third leg is a big weak point however so is the female breasticles and their lovely lady lumps...